MP High Court Denied Anticipatory Bail To A Man Who Called The RSS A Taliban Terrorist Organization

Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a man who is accused of calling the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) a Taliban Terrorist Organization on social media. The Court found looking at the material on record that there is sufficient evidence available against the accused.

Facts of the Case

The applicant was apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.631/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali Tikamgarh, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 153, 295, 505(1) and 505(2) of the IPC. The applicant along with the co-accused made certain comments comparing the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh with the terrorist organisation Taliban on social media. They were accused of public mischief and provocation to cause riot.

Submissions by Applicant

Defence Advocate BR Pandey submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry. He never made comments on any religion or any organization. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant, he has been made an accused only on the basis of suspicions. The investigation has been completed but the charge sheet has not been filed. Due to COVID-19, the trial will take a long time. In view of the aforesaid, prayer was made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

Prosecution Arguments

Government Advocate YD Yadav opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the applicant along with co-accused made certain comments alleging Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh as Taliban Terrorist Organization on social media and created a viral message. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail.

High Court's View

"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the material available on record including case diary and the role attributed in the commission of offences by the applicant, there is sufficient evidence available against the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby dismissed."