Bail can be granted if the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation, particularly when offenses are bailable or no incitement is proven beyond the petitioner's presence.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. By this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 152/2021 under Section 188 /269/270/153-A IPC, 3 Epidemics Disease Act and 51(b) of Disaster Management Act registered at PS Connaught Place.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody in the above-noted FIR since 10th August, 2021 and all offences except Section 153-a IPC are bailable offences. Further, even going through the various video footages, the petitioner while giving his interview to the Press or making any statement has not passed any offensive remarks against any particular religion which could incite violence and hence has committed no offence under Section 153-a IPC. As per the footages available the event took place from 10.00 AM to 11.45 AM when no offence under Section 153-a IPC was committed and the petitioner had left the spot at around 2.00 PM. Thus the slogan shouting which took place at 4.00 PM and is the genesis of the FIR in question was not done by the petitioner and the petitioner was not even present at the spot at that time and hence cannot be prosecuted for the act of the people who indulged in slogan shouting at 4.00 PM. It is stated that even as per the statement made to the Press, the petitioner's demand was of a Hindu Rashtra which cannot be said to be an offence under Section 153-a IPC. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as (1997) 7 SCC 431 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of A.P.; (1988) 1 SCC 668 Ramesh S/o Chotalal Dalal Vs. UOI; (2021) SCC Online SC 258 Patricia Mukhim Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.; (2021) SCC Online Bombay 1127 Sunaina Holey Vs. State of Maharashtra and (1994) SCC Online Bombay 461 Joseph Bain D'Souza & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

3. Learned APP for the State opposing the bail application states that the petitioner was a co-organizer of the event and is thus responsible for the incitement which continued till the evening. Even in the interview given by the petitioner along with the co-accused Pinki Chaudhary inciting words against the other community have been stated. The decision of the Supreme Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the case. Even the decision in Sunaina Holey relates to a facebook post and is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is stated that video coverage of the incident clearly makes out the offence punishable under Section 153-a IPC. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2004) 4 SCC 684 State of Karnataka Vs. Praveen Bhai Thogadia.

4. The above-noted FIR was registered on the complaint of a Head Constable from PS Connaught Place who was on duty at Bank of Baroda, Sansad Marg near Jantar Mantar. He stated that on 8th August, 2021 while he was on duty along with the other staff, at 9.00 AM approximately many protestors having flags and banners in their hands came for protest for an unknown programme. They were made to understand that preparation for 15th August were going on, farmers were also on protest and guidelines under the DDMA have also been issued. Imposition of Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area was also informed and that no one can protest at that place without permission. However, they were very aggressive for their demands. Out of those, few people were making objectionable remarks about a particular religion. The people present there were also not following the rules of social distancing and few people were without masks. Since the protestors were protesting without permission and have violated the DDMA guidelines, Section 144 Cr.P.C. order No. 1231-59/SO/ACP/Connaught Place dated 21st June, 2021, legal action be taken against them.

5.