The court granted bail based on the lack of evidence regarding public order disturbance, the failure to communicate grounds of arrest, and the principle that bail should not be punitive, especially when the accused has been incarcerated for over six months.

1. Heard Sri R.C.Yadav, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vishwa Jeet Mukherji, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.190 of 2025, under Sections 299 , 196,353, 61(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged against co-accused Saroj Sargam with the allegation that she hurt the sentiments of the Hindu Community by using abusive language against Hindu Deity but during investigation when her statement was recorded by Police then she stated that applicant was the person who provided material to her which she used in her songs and after the statement of co-accused Saroj Sargam who was nominated in the FIR, applicant has also been made accused in the present matter.

4. He further submits that apart from the statement of co-accused Saroj Sargam before the Police, as per prosecution from the possession of the applicant a book was also recovered which also hurt the feelings of the Hindu Community but admittedly that book has not been written by applicant though applicant is the editor of the book.

5. He further submits, merely being Editor of alleged book it cannot be said that applicant also hurt the religious sentiments of a community.

6. He further submits that however as per allegation due to the conduct of the applicant religious sentiments of a community has been hurt but there is no evidence that due to this any public order has also been disturbed.

7. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.9.2025 and immediately thereafter through the statement of nominated co-accused Saroj Sargam applicant has been made accused and he has been arrested on 25.9.2025, i.e., within two days but in two days award of Rs. 25,000/- has been declared against him and this shows high handedness of the Administration.

8. He further submits that in paragraph-17 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application applicant has specifically made an averment that at the time of arrest ground of arrest has not been communicated to the applicant and thus his arrest was in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another , (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 799.

9. He next submits that even in the counter affidavit filed by State in paragraph-9 this fact has been admitted that the ground of arrest has not been supplied to the applicant at the time of his arrest and, therefore, in view of the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (Supra), applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

10. He further argued that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the paragraph-28 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and in one case relates to Case Crime No. 271 of 2025 applicant has been made accused su