While not leaving even a single layer of doubt to linger in the mind of anyone, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Dr Nadeem Akhtar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh in CrMP(M) No. 1425 of 2023 that was reserved on June 26, 2023 and then finally pronounced on July 24, 2023 has been unequivocal in holding that while residing in the society, every person must respect the religious beliefs of other members of the community and that in the name of freedom of expression, the Laxman Rekha should not be crossed.

The Court denied anticipatory bail to a qualified ophthalmologist facing an FIR under Sections 295A IPC, 153A and 505(2) IPC on the allegations of posting derogatory Facebook comments against Lord Shiva and Lord Nandi (the bull vahana of Lord Shiva). It must be mentioned that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Virender Singh while noting that as per the allegations, the applicant Dr Nadeem Akhtar has posted derogatory comments which have hurt the religious sentiments of a particular section. What is most striking is that the Bench noted that he is not a layman but an educated person who is well aware of the effect of his alleged post and comments. Considering the serious gravity of the situation, the Court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea while according reasons as we shall discuss later.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Virender Singh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, Applicant-Nadeem Akhtar has filed the present application, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the Police/Investigating Officer of Police Station Mehatpur, District Una, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 54 of 2023, dated 3rd June, 2023, registered under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).

As we see, the Bench discloses in para 3 that:
According to the applicant, he is a qualified ophthalmologist and running a private clinic at Mehatpur. He is living in the said area for the last more than twenty years and rendering services as a Doctor.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that:
When put to notice, the police has filed the status report on 8th June, 2023, disclosing therein that the police of Mehatpur has received a complaint on 3rd June, 2023, which was forwarded to the Police Station from SP Office, Una. The said complaint was moved by S/Sh. Vivek Bhardwaj, ExCouncillor, Ward No. 4, Mehatpur Basdehda; Deepak Diwedi, Chairman, Vyapaar Mandal Mehatpur Basdehda and Subhash Arey, President, Vyapaar Mandal Mehatpur Basdehda. In the complaint, it has been mentioned that a person, by the name of Nadeem Akhtar (applicant), who is running an Eye Hospital, in the name and style of ‘Eshan Hospital’, had posted derogatory comments, on facebook, against Bhagwaan Bhole Shankar and Shivling.

As it turned out, the Bench then further mentions in para 10 that:
According to the complainant, he is habitual of posting such type of posts on his facebook account and his act has outraged the religious feelings. The complainants have also mentioned that later on, this person has taken a false defence that someone has hacked his facebook ID. According to them, considering his posts on the facebook account, his activities come under suspicion.

Further, the Bench states in para 11 that:
It has been requested in the complaint that thorough investigation is required to be done as to whether this person has been associated with any anti-national activities. In the facebook post/comment, according to the complainants, the applicant has also insulted Nandi (a bull on which Lord Shiva rides) and due to his act, there is lot of resentment in the persons, residing in the near-by villages.

Furthermore, the Bench discloses in para 12 that:
On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the FIR under Section 295-A IPC. Thereafter, the criminal machinery swung into motion. During investigation, the police has taken the print-outs of screenshots of the applicant’s facebook ID. In the screenshot of the first page, one ox is licking the Shivling, upon which, the applicant, has commented, as follows:

Are par wahan mila kya murkhon ye to bata do apne bachchon ko. Bata do baba nahin babaji ka mil gaya. Jab ye bachche kabhi bahar jayenge to inhi ke dost inka mazaak udayenge ki tumhare desh mein to ling is king. Saari duniya mein ye nautnki karke bhartiyo ko hansi ka patra bana diya. Dharm ki kuch baatein dabi chupi rehti hain wahin achcha hai. Ye saari nautanki se sari duniya ab hum par hansegi.

Still more, the Bench mentions in para 13 that:
On the second page, the applicant has been stated to have made the following post:

Gaubar aur gaumutra ki aapar safalta ke baad andhbhakton ke liye pesh hai Naya brain tonic Gadhe ki leedh.

What’s more, the Bench then specifies in para 14 stating that:
Third page is the screenshot of the facebook ID of the applicant, according to which, the URL of the facebook ID of the applicant is http://www.facebook.com/nadeem.akhtar.10485?mibextid=ZbWKwL.

To say the least, the Bench states in para 15 that:
Initially, the police has recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, efforts were made to nab the applicant, but, he was not found.

As things stand, the Bench reveals in para 17 that:
After perusing the status report, so filed, the interim protection was granted to the police to release the applicant on bail, in the event of his arrest.

In addition, the Bench discloses in para 18 that:
On 16th June, 2023, the police has filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein that on 13th June, 2023, the applicant joined the investigation and he was released on bail, as per the directions of this Court.

Adding more to it, the Bench specifies in para 19 that:
As per the status report, on 15th June, 2023, demonstrations were made against the applicant by Hindu Ekta Manch and Vyapaar Mandal, Mehatpur.

To be sure, the Bench lays bare in para 20 stating that:
The matter was, thereafter, adjourned for 26th June, 2023. On that day, the police filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that on the basis of the statements, so recorded, Sections 153A and 505 (2) IPC have also been added, in this case.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 23 that:
According to the status report, the same contains the screenshots of the facebook profile of the applicant; in one page, the screenshot, with regard to the comments made by the applicant, outraging the religious feelings and in the rest screenshots, containing 8 pages, the applicant had made indecent comments on the leaders. The pen drive is also stated to be containing the post, by virtue of which, the applicant had regretted.

Of course, the Bench then lays bare in para 24 that:
On 21st June, 2023, when, the applicant was associated, he has apprised the police that his facebook account has been hacked by someone or the same has been posted by someone by creating a fake ID. This had been disclosed by him with regard to the comments of Bhagwaan Nandi and Shivling.

It ought to be noted that the Bench then notes in para 25 that:
On 22nd June, 2023, the facebook friend of the applicant, namely Sanjeev Kumar, has submitted five screenshots. From those screenshots, according to the police, it has been confirmed that the applicant has made derogatory comments on Nandi Bhagwaan and Shivling.

It is worth noting that the Bench points out in para 26 that:
On 23rd June, 2023, C. Ajay Kumar, Cyber Cell, has submitted the printout of the screenshot of the mobile. This screenshot is of the mobile phone of accused (applicant), which was taken into possession, in which, when the Google history was checked, it was found that the applicant has searched as to how to delete the facebook history from mobile and how to modify screenshot of facebook comments.

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 27 that:
This fact has been highlighted in the status report to show that after making the derogatory comments, the applicant has searched on the Google search engine as to how to delete the data and how to modify the comments.

Truth be told, the Bench states in para 28 that:
A request has been made by the investigating agency to the organizer of Meta Platform, vide letter, dated 19th June, 2023, to provide the registration details of facebook ID of the applicant, registration details of mobile number with facebook account, as well as, IP details of the alleged facebook ID. The said report is stated to be still awaited.

No wonder, the Bench mentions in para 29 that:
It is the case of the police that due to the act of the applicant, leading to insult the religious feelings, there is a lot of resentment in the area and against the said facebook post, there are demonstrations.

More to the point, the Bench adds in para 30 that:
It has been apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, the people of the locality may indulge in aggressive demonstrations and it may also result in ethnic disputes. These facts have been highlighted in the status report, as an apprehension of the law and order condition in the area.

While putting the record straight, the Bench notes in para 34 that:
The applicant has been named as accused, in a case, which has been registered under Sections 295A, 153A and 505 (2) IPC. No doubt, the applicant has joined the investigation, as per the directions of this Court, but, as per the allegations, the applicant has posted, on his facebook account, the derogatory comments, which have hurt the religious sentiments of a particular section of the society.

Most significantly, the Bench minces absolutely no words to hold unequivocally in para 35 that:
The applicant is not a layman, but, an educated person, who is well aware about the effect of his alleged post and comments. While residing in the society, it is the duty of every person to give due respect to the religious belief of other members of the society. In the name of freedom of expression, the laxman rekha should not be crossed.

It definitely cannot be glossed over that the Bench then observes in para 36 that:
Moreover, the applicant has not made any complaint to the police, when, his facebook account was allegedly hacked by someone. The applicant is having status in the society and, as such, he carries more responsibility. He ought to have exercised more caution before allegedly making the comments or putting post on his facebook account.

Most remarkably, the Bench clearly holds in para 37 that:
While deciding the question of bail, this Court has to maintain a delicate balance between the individual liberty and the larger interest of the society.

Most commendably, the Bench unambiguously observes in para 38 propounding that, As per the allegations in the F.I.R., the social media has been used by the applicant for hurting the religious feelings of the followers of a particular religion. The police has specifically expressed certain apprehensions, in case, the interim order is made absolute. At this stage, those apprehensions cannot be said to be unfounded. Allowing the bail application, in this case, will also give a wrong signal to the society and it will encourage other persons to make such type of comments, allegedly causing resentment in the minds of followers of the other religions, which is also not good for the secular fabric of the country.

As a corollary, the Bench holds in para 39 that:
Considering all these facts and the ramification of the offences, alleged committed by the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for any relief, under Section 438 CrPC. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.

For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 40 stating that:
Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application.

All in all, we thus see that the Himachal Pradesh High Court has made it indubitably clear while denying bail to the doctor that no citizen should cross the Laxman Rekha under the garb of the freedom of expression. It is thus the bounden duty of all of us to always display due respect for the religious feelings of not only people of our religion alone but also of the people of other religions as well. It will be in our own best interest and in our national interests also if we do the same and never try to hurt the religious sentiments of any other person! Of course, the earlier we all realize this, the better it shall be in our national interests as well as in our own interests also! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh