Image Courtesy: indiatoday.in
Last week, courts in Haridwar refused to grant bail to two accused in the ‘Dharam Sansad’ case Yati Narsinghanand and Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (formerly known as Wasim Rizvi) for delivering hate speeches at the religious conclave held between December 17 to December 19, 2021.
Tyagi was the first to get arrested in the case, and a few days later Narsinghanand was also arrested. It is apparent that both arrests were made after the Supreme Court took cognisance of a petition seeking criminal action in the case which was previously ignored by the Haridwar Police. Even now, the criticism is that important sections of the Penal code that apply in the case have not been invoked and that all the speakers of the event who made the incendiary speeches have not been arrested.
Narsinghanand was arrested on January 15 from Sarvanand Ghat where he was staging a ‘satyagraha’ against the arrest of Tyagi. Yati’s bail was rejected by Chief Judicial magistrate Mukesh Arya while Tyagi’s abil was rejected by the Sessions Court judge Ritesh Kumar Shrivastava.
Tyagi was booked under section 153A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer opposed the bail application stating that Tyagi had made several statements against a particular religion and had incited communal disharmony by making objectionable comments against Prophet Mohammad.
The court observed that Tyagi had criminal antecedents and was booked for similar offences in the past. Taking this into account and the graveness of the offences invoked against him, the court refused to grant him bail.
The Sessions Court order may be read here:
Narsinghanand was denied bail in two cases, one for making hate speeches in ‘Dharam Sansad’ and other for his derogatory remarks against Muslim women. In the latter, he was booked under sections 295A and 509 of the IPC. He had alleged that Muslim women acted as mistresses of politicians. He has been under judicial custody since January 16.
Narsinghanand stated in his bail application that the FIR was filed against him in a delayed manner and that the FIR does not mention the comments made by him.
The court observed that despite notices being issued against him under section 41A of CrPC, Narsinghanand continued to make inflammatory comments and there was a possibility that due to such comments, serious crimes could be committed in the area. The court rejected his bail noting that the offences against him were grave in nature.
In the case related to hate speeches made by him at Dharam Sansad, Narsinghanand made similar submissions. However, the court observed that as per the case diary, the statements made by Narsinghanand had the potential to disturb communal harmony in the area and that it is evident that his statements were inflammatory and could provoke communal disturbances and violence in the area as well. The court thus rejected bail noting that the allegations against Narsinghanand were grave.
The Chief Magistrate court’s order may be read here:
In related news, the Attorney General of India has granted consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Narsinghanand for making derogatory comments against the Supreme Court of India and for undermining its authority.
Another accused in the Dharam Sansad case, Swami Prabodhanand Giri, has sought quashing of the FIR filed against him in the case and Uttarakhand High Court has issued notice to the state in the matter.
Related:
Narsinghanand arrested: Is it for Hate Speech or misogyny?
Contempt plea against Yati Narsinghanand receives AG’s consent
PM Modi’s maun over the genocide call speaks volumes