Freedom Of Speech Doesn't Entitle A Person To Make Derogatory Remarks Against Any Community/Gender: P&H High Court

The Bench of Justice Alka Sarin made the above-said observation while dismissing a petition for grant of regular bail to the Petitioner under Sections 153-A, 295-A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Facts of the Case

An FIR was lodged on the complaint made by one Savita Kajal and Kuldeep Bhukkal wherein it was alleged that Savita Kajal had uploaded a post of Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar on her Facebook ID and one Vijender Sarsawa (petitioner herein) made insulting and objectionable comments on the post to create disharmony in society.

It was further alleged that the petitioner uses filthy language and makes objectionable comments against females belonging to Scheduled Castes.

It was also alleged that insulting comments have been made by the petitioner against Muslim women.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the ingredients of Section 153-A, 295-A and 505 are not made out and he has been in custody since 24.09.2020.

Earlier, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted before the Court that the complainant is a chronic litigant and is in the habit of filing false and frivolous complaints with ulterior motive to extort money from innocent persons.

It was further submitted that even perusal of the messages, which the Petitioner allegedly texted on Facebook "were in fact messages received by him and forwarded without any motive much less to hurt the feeling of the complainant or the other citizens of the country."

Court's Observation and order

The Court, in its order, said,

"A bare perusal of the screenshots of the said posts prima facie reveals that the posts are not only derogatory in nature but are made against particular communities."

Further, the Court noted that the petitioner, along with the petition appended as Annexure just one of the posts, "whereas a number of posts as made by the petitioner have been attached with the status report."

In view of the above, the Court did not find it fit to extend the benefit of regular bail to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's bail application was hence, dismissed.

Case title - Vijender Kumar v. State Of Haryana [CRM-M-34577-2020]

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]