Granting anticipatory bail based on unconditional apologies and undertakings not to conduct similar activities in the future.

ORDER :

Prayers: For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 223 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 73 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police.

1. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10510 of 2022/Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 153(A), 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), 505(2), 506(1) and 109 I.P.C. in Crime No. 223 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10512 of 2022/Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 153 A(1)(a), 504, 505(1)(b), 5051(c) I.P.C. in Crime No. 73 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

3. A three Judges Bench of Karnataka High Court headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice has pronounced a judgment backing a ban on Hijabs in Educational Institutions. The meetings, now in dispute were convened to protest against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court.

4. The first meeting was convened on 17.03.2022 at 15.30 hours at Goripalayam Mosque Street, Madurai Town and the second meeting was convened on 18.03.2022 at about 17.30 hours near Mariamman temple at south street, Thiruvadanai. In the first meeting, the first accused in Cr. No. 223 of 2022 is shown as State Level main speaker and the accused 2 and 3 are the office bearers of the Tamil Nadu Thowhith Jamath, who have convened and arranged the meeting. In the second meeting, the second accused is a State Level speaker and the other accused are the office bearers of the said Organisation, who convened and arranged the meeting.

5. It is not in dispute that in the first meeting, the main speaker who is the first accused has already been arrested and is in judicial custody and that the other two accused connected with the first meeting and all the five accused connected with the second meeting are now apprehending arrest.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present petitioners have not given any such speech, that they were not in agreement with the speech made by the main speakers and that for the speech made by the main speakers, the petitioners cannot be mulcted with criminal liability.

7. As already pointed out, the petitioners, who are the office bearers of the said organisation in that particular Districts, have convened those meetings and invited the State Level speakers to address the gatherings and as such, they were rightly arrayed as accused.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has also produced the transcript of the speech delivered by the speakers at the said meetings. It is evident that the speakers have given an “open threat of murder” to the Honourable Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and other two Judges.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, they have referred to the incident in which the Additional District Judge of Dhanbad District was killed while he was walking and according to them, an auto rickshaw had intentionally ran over and killed the said Judge. They have not only threatened the Judges of the High Court who gave the verdict, but also the Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court who are going to hear the appeals and pronounce the judgment. The speaker went to the extent of threatening the judges of Supreme Court that in case, if the judgment is not in their favour, they would face major accidents somewhere and if any accident, murder or any other untoward incident happens to them, they are responsible for the same.

10. No doubt, the petitioners' earlier applications in Crl. O.P. (MD) Nos. 5430 and 5513 of 2022 were dismissed by this Court, vide common order dated 08.04.2022. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in the earlier petitions have also raised a plea relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's c