Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To Man Who Replaced National Flag With Saffron Flag On Mosque

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while refusing to grant anticipatory bail to man who changed national flag with a saffron flag on a Mosque, has observed that the gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in a case arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 299, 3(5), 61(2) of BNS and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971.

The Single Bench of Justice Manisha Batra observed, "The allegations against the petitioner are not vague or general in nature but are specific and substantiated by initial investigation, including purported conversations between the petitioner and the co-accused during the commission of the alleged act. The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage. No extraordinary or exceptional circumstance has been brought on record by the petitioner that would warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly in light of the serious communal and constitutional implications of the alleged conduct."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Abhimanyu Singh, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg.

Facts of the Case

It was alleged that on receipt of information about the national flag being hoisted on a Mosque being removed and some other flag being erected by some persons, a police party immediately rushed towards the spot and was informed by the complainant that at around 11:15 A.M., 2-3 unsocial elements had removed the national flag and had thrown it. He disclosed the names of three of the miscreants and also provided an audio and video recording. The persons named by him were apprehended and arrested. During the investigation, it was revealed that accused had made a call to the Petitioner on his mobile phone at the time when the flag was being removed. The video recording of the incident had been done by the Complainant and he handed over the same to the Police. It was revealed that it was in connivance with the present Petitioner that the co-accused had removed the national flag from the spot. Apprehending his arrest, the Petitioner moved an Application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed.

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in this case and had no role to play in the entire incident. It was contended that he was not even named in the FIR and was named by the co-accused who was extended benefit of regular bail. Stating that his custodial interrogation is not required, the Counsel averred that no recovery is to be effected from him and he is ready to join investigation.

On the other hand, State Counsel assisted by Counsel for the Complainant has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the Petitioner who with an intent to create communal tension in the vicinity, had got the National Flag hoisted in the Mosque of village Uton removed and instead thereof, had furled a saffron flag in place of the same with an intent to cause hurt to religious feelings of the members of muslim community.

Reasoning By Court

The Court agreed with the State Counsel that the gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked and thus was not inclined to grant him bail.

"It is well settled that custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of the BNSS. Many useful information can be disinterred during custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner coupled with the fact that no exceptional or sparing circumstance for grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner is made out and the fact that deeper and proper probe is required to be conducted in the manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must and no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Vikas Tomar vs. State of Haryana (2025:PHHC:093851)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Abhimanyu Singh

Respondent- Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg, Advocate Rosi

Click here to read/ download Order