Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA Over Facebook Posts Allegedly Instigating Muslims To Act Against Hindus

Case: Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India

Coram: Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2022

Court Observation: Other than the allegations against the appellant for having posted abusive and inciting materials, the appellant is not said to have indulged in any act of violence. When Section 13 of the said Act (UAPA) also does not fall within Chapter IV or VI of that Act requiring invoking of Section 43D(5) and (6) of the Act while deciding the bail application, the Special Court had wrongly invoked Section 43D(5) and (6) of the Act for dismissing the bail application.

Now coming to the contents in the alleged Facebook posts, a reading of the vernacular material reveals that it had propagated the ideology of the appellant and reprimanded Muslim Youths for not following Tawheed Hakimiyyah and criticized caste system prevailing in Hindu religion, but, nowhere it advocates for overthrow or subversion of the Government established by law through violent means and it also does not bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt and does not excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law attracting the offence punishable under Section 124A IPC.

The Association to which the appellant belongs is also not a proscribed organization or deemed to be a terrorist organization. As indicated above, Section 13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 does not fall within Chapter IV or VI of the Act requiring recording of satisfaction as contemplated by sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 43D of the Act. The appellant has been in custody for more than 300 days. Taking into consideration the stage of the case and the number of witnesses, there is also no likelihood of the trial being completed at the earliest. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail.

Previous Posts

JJ Act: Child In Conflict With Law Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Bombay High Court

Simultaneous Prosecution Of Accused U/S 420 IPC & S.138 NI Act On Same Set Of Facts Not Double Jeopardy: J&K&L High Court

Courts Can’t Enter Into Merits Of Selection Process Unless Selection Committee Has Been Malafide Or In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Delhi High Court

When Substantial Evidence Is Lacking To Connect Accused With Crime, Other Corroborative Evidence Loses Significance: Gujarat High Court

Omission In Framing Of Charge Not Fatal By Itself Unless Prejudice Caused To Accused: Madras High Court

498-A IPC Report Can’t Be Used As Weapon To Teach Lesson To In-Laws To Settle Scores With Husband: Chhattisgarh HC

Employee’s Termination Without Departmental Inquiry Based On Incomplete & Non-Specific Show Cause Notice Violative Of S.25G Of ID Act: Gujarat HC

Subsequent SC Decisions Which Have Considered & Distinguished Earlier Judgments Binding On High Courts: Supreme Court

Ready Reckoner Rates Meant For Calculation Of Stamp Duty Cannot Be The Basis For Determination Of Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court

Cannot Find Favour When Free Speech Is Celebrated – Kerala High Court Quashes Censure against KSEB Cashier For WhatsApp Text Against CM Download Judgement

Keywords

Instigating Muslims To Act Against Hindus, UAPA