Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Dargah Cleric Who Allegedly Raised 'Sar Tan Se Juda' Slogan Against Nupur Sharma

The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a Ajmer Sharif Dargah cleric who allegedly provoked people and raised Sar Tan Se Juda slogan in a protest rally related to alleged statements made by BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain denied bail to Syed Gohar Husain Chisti as it noted that if he is released on bail, he might pose a threat to society at large and affect the law and order situation in the State. 

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court noted that though Chisti was granted permission to raise protest by way of a "peaceful procession", he arranged for mics and loudspeakers and allegedly raised religiously charged slogans before a crowd of 3000 people that were provocative, vindictive and motivated in hate speech.

"Moreover, the applicant is alleged to have been actively involved in the incident as the mastermind. In contravention of the categorical directions of the police authorities, the law and order was put in jeopardy and communal discomfort was caused throughout the country, including certain unfortunate incidents at Amravati and Udaipur," the Court further remarked as it denied him bail.

The allegations against Chisti

As per the allegations, the Ajmer Dargah cleric Gauhar Chisti along with others raised the slogan in question [gustakhi-e-nabi ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda sar tan se juda (Beheading is the only punishment for those who insult Prophet Muhammad)] on June 17 while organizing a rally to protest against the alleged statement made by suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma against Prophet Mohammad.

He was arrested on July 15 from Hyderbad and was booked under Sections 506, 504, 188, 149, 143, 117 and 302/115 of IPC. Before the Court, he argued that Sharma had hurt the religious sentiments of the community and in protest of the same, a peaceful procession was carried out by him with due and lawful permission.

Regarding the allegations that at his instance, Udaipur and Amravati murder cases happened, he argued that he had no role to play in those cases, nor is he a party in the said cases and since, the allegations qua him are limited to raising slogans, provisions of Section 302/115 cannot be attracted in the instant case.

In response to this argument, the state argued that the alleged video clips of the slogan in question were widely circulated online which in effect led to the unfortunate incidents at Udaipur and Amravati, wherein the victims were beheaded on account of religious hatred promulgated by such slogans and therefore, provisions of Section 115 read with Section 302 were also added in the FIR.

Taking into account the submissions made by the Parties, the Court refused to grant him bail.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 245