Haridwar Dharam Sansad: Local Court Denies Bail To Jitendra Tyagi Aka Wasim Rizvi For Remarks On Prophet Muhammad

Tyagi has been booked under Sections 153A [Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony], 298 [Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person] of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Uttarakhand Police.

This case has been registered against him for allegedly making objectionable and inflammatory statements against Islam religion and Prophet Mohammad during the 'Dharam Sansad' or religious assembly which was held in Haridwar last month.

The order of the Haridwar Court

The investigating officer submitted before the Local Court that several statements have been made by the accused against a particular religion inciting communal passions.

The Court noted that as per the case diary, it has been alleged that in a video recording of Dharam Sansad, Tyagi could be seen and heard as saying that "(Prophet) Mohammed was arrogant, (Prophet) Mohammad was a madman, a terrorist, he had created a terrorist base."

Further, the Court observed that in the case diary, it has been mentioned that the accused further said that "under the pressure of these fundamentalist mullahs, in Haridwar, which is Devanagari, four-five thousand mullahs and clerics of mosques often gather."

As recorded by the Court in its order, the case diary states that in the video, the accused had stated about the persons of a particular religion that "if they come to the field and want to fight with us with weapons, then we are ready for that also."

The Court noted that the prosecution has alleged that in past as well, he has been booked under similar offences for allegedly committing similar acts.

The Court also took into account the fact that the prosecution has levelled the charge of repeating the offences for which he had been served with a 41A CrPC Notice.

Therefore, looking into the seriousness of the case and the charges against him, the Court denied him the benefit of being released on bail.