Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Journalist Accused Of Hate Speech Targeting Purvanchal Community, Migrant Labourers

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a journalist accused of using derogatory and inflammatory language against Purvanchali Community and migrant labourers.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 304, 196, 352, 353(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held, "As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The material collected during the course of investigation including the supplementary statement and the pen-drive produced by the complainant, indicates that the petitioner, being a journalist, circulated abusive and inflammatory remarks against the Purvanchal community, migrant labourers and women of that community. The complaint was supported by a memorandum signed by several other members of the Purvanchal community and the digital material produced during investigation prima facie indicate that the petitioner was instrumental in circulating content containing derogatory and inflammatory statements targeting specific groups. To borrow from the Speech Act Theory (propounded by Austin and Searle), utterances are required to be examined not just for their literal meaning but also for the communicative intention and action they convey. Every speech act involves a locutionary act (the word spoken), an illocutionary act (the speaker’s intention) and a perlocutionary act (the effect on the audience)."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Naveen Sharma, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Adhiraj Singh Thind.

Facts of the Case

The gravamen of the FIR pertains to using of abusive words and insulting the Purvanchal community. It was alleged by the Complainant that he belongs to the same community and the Petitioner and co-accused regularly insult the Purvanchal community. He further alleged that co-accused abuses, threatens, intimidates and blackmails poor road vendors. The accused also delivered provocative and hateful speeches against the Hindu-Sikh communities to create social disharmony.

It was further alleged that both the accused make derogatory remarks about the women of the Purvanchal community which has caused great anger among its members. Both the accused were blackmailers who extort money from the migrant workers by threatening them. The Complaint was supported by a memorandum signed by several other members of the Purvanchal community. The matter was forwarded to the ADCP for investigation. During the course of inquiry, the Complainant submitted a pen drive.

It was found that co-accused Sushil Machan had intentionally interviewed Petitioner Sandeep Singh alias Sandvi, who made provocative statements by claiming that migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar bring large quantities of ganja to Punjab and sell it in Ludhiana. Furthermore, the women of the Purvanchal community are involved in flesh trade and that migrants are now ruling Punjab. On these set of allegations, the FIR was registered.

Counsel for the Petitioner iterated that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question and has no connection with the alleged incident. He further iterated that the present case is a case of version and cross-version as the incident arose out of a verbal altercation between the members of the Punjabi and Purvanchal communities outside the Police Station resulting in FIRs being lodged by both sides. It was further submitted that no specific injury has been attributed to the Petitioner and his name has been introduced later only through a supplementary statement. It was further iterated that the allegations against the Petitioner are vague, baseless and appear to be motivated by malice. The Counsel also submitted that despite there being no direct or indirect involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged occurrence, he has been roped into the present case without any credible evidence.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the allegations in the present case is not only confined to roadside altercation but point towards the conduct which is capable of provoking communal disharmony which carries far graver implications.

"...The plea of the petitioner that he was named only in a supplementary statement is not sufficient to discard or dilute the material that has surfaced during the course of investigation. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter is not only serious but possesses the potential to disturb the public order and peace among the communities. At this stage, such material cannot be brushed aside as wholly unreliable and the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would hamper the ongoing investigation and undermine the effort to maintain communal harmony", the Court held. 

It further remarked that the Court is not oblivious of the fact that the offence of this nature not only effects the individual but also create a sense of insecurity in the community at large.

"...Protection of such offenders at the stage of investigation would send a wrong signal to society and embolden others to indulge in similar unlawful activities. The power under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is meant to protect innocent persons from unnecessary  harassment and false implication but the same cannot be extended to those against whom there are prima facie serious allegations supported by material collected during investigation. The investigation is still in progress and the  investigating agency is required to scrutinize the electronic evidence and the degree of complicity of the petitioner and others involved. Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence", the Court held.

Noting that no cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR, the Court stressed that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests.

"The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation", it remarked.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Sandeep Singh Attal @ Sandvi v. State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:167444)

Click here to read/ download Order