In a shocking turn of events, an incident involving the two accused allegedly shared a video on Instagram and Facebook depicting a person, Abdul Hakim, insulting the Tulasi Thara which is deemed a sacred plant in Hindu religious traditions. The video showed Hakkim engaging in an act that was offensive to Hindu religious sentiments. Consequently, an FIR was registered against Sreeraj under Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, while Hakkim himself was not subject to prosecution.
In a shocking turn of events, an incident involving the two accused allegedly shared a video on Instagram and Facebook depicting a person, Abdul Hakkim, insulting the Tulasi Thara which is deemed a sacred plant in Hindu religious traditions.
The video showed Hakkim engaging in an act that was offensive to Hindu religious sentiments. Consequently, an FIR was registered against Sreeraj under Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, while Hakkim himself was not subject to prosecution.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel contended that Sreeraj merely shared an already available video on social media and had no intention to incite enmity between religious groups. It was further submitted that Sreeraj was falsely implicated, whereas on the other hand no action was taken against the original perpetrator Abdul Hakkim who allegedly suffered from a mental illness. The defense also produced a pen drive containing the video for the court’s perusal.
The prosecution opposed the bail in the purview of Sreeraj’s previous and existing three other cases registered under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on similar grounds. The State argued that the conduct of the accused persons were deliberate enough to incite communal disharmony.
The Court’s Observations
After reviewing the evidence, the court noted that it was unclear whether Abdul Hakkim was indeed suffering from any mental disorder. Despite this, no legal action had been initiated against him. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan raised significant concerns regarding the police’s selective enforcement of the law, pointing out that:
- If Hakkim was mentally ill, how was he still the owner and licensee of a hotel within the premises of Guruvayoor Temple?
- If he was considered unfit to face prosecution, how did he hold a valid driving license?
- While Sreeraj was arrested and jailed for merely sharing the video, how was the person responsible for the original act left unpunished?
The court remarked that such selective prosecution raised concerns about fairness and impartiality in delivering fairer justice. The judge categorically stated:
“It seems that no case is registered against Abdul Hakkim. It seems that he is the owner of a hotel in the premises of Guruvayoor Temple. Even now that hotel is functioning, in which it seems that the person who committed the mischief is continuing as the owner and license holder. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that he is even having a driving license. Such a person is set free by the police without registering a case, and the petitioner herein is arrested and put behind the bar.”
Furthermore, the court stressed the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019):
“The basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.”
The court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments that have been reiterated time and again, the principle that the “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” Key references included:
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), where the Supreme Court reiterated that pretrial detention should not be used as a punitive measure.
- Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024), which emphasized that the seriousness of allegations alone is insufficient to deny bail.
- Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), where the Court cautioned against the increasing tendency of lower courts to deny bail in straightforward cases, leading to unnecessary judicial backlog.
The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan held:
“The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. ‘Bail is the rule and jail is an exception’ is a settled law. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.”
Based on these legal precedents, the Kerala High Court ruled that Sreeraj was entitled to bail on conditions that, he was required to furnish a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, he was directed to cooperate with the investigation and not tamper with evidence, he was prohibited from leaving the country without court permission and, was warned against committing any similar offense in the future.
About Author
Tanishq, a law student at the Department of Legal Studies and Research, Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, is a budding legal writer with a sharp eye for evolving legal landscapes. Passionate about Intellectual Property Rights, Constitutional Law, and Women and Child Safety Laws, Tanishq actively explores contemporary legal nuances through writing and research.