JUDGMENT (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. With the consent of parties, application is taken up for final

hearing and disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Before we proceed to decide the present criminal application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C") on the basis of its factual matrix, arguments of the respective lawyers and legal pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we must mention that the present application invites the Constitutional Court once again to answer the recurring question that falls in the midst of free speech and criminal law. In a situation to analyze as to when and in what narrow circumstances, can offensive words uttered in the heat of quarrel be leveled from their context and made to bear the weight of an aggravated offence such as one under Section 295 A of Indian Penal Code. The issue in our view cannot be answered merely on the basis of facts and circumstances but requires stricter and constitutional principles and safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19 and also by keeping in mind the aims and object with which Indian legislature has drafted Section 295 A of Indian Penal Code (for short "Ï.P.C"). The law does protect religious belief from deliberate and strategic spread of false or misleading information or to be abused so as to cause damage in the society thereby affecting societal peace, law and order situation. However, it definitely does not create a criminal enclave around political leaders or community icons. However, may be the public following of said leader and however unwittingly

the insult may be when measured against politeness, respect and courteous behavior to hold otherwise or decide differently. Broader meaning if applied to terms used in Section 295A will affect the free speech, encourage unfair use of laws for political gains and turn a small exception into a larger problem. Keeping these safeguards and limitations in our mind, we now proceed to decide the case in hand on these parameters.

Factual Matrix of the case :-

4. The facts in the present case are not in serious dispute and can be stated briefly. On 12.12.2023 at about 6:30 PM, inside one Kinara Bar at Killari, the applicant said to have consumed liquor and got into a quarrel with the waiter of the said restaurant and bar. During the said altercation, he alleged to have used abusive words by referring to Mr. Manoj Jarange Patil a public figure associated and leading agitation for Maratha reservation, more specifically described in the First Information Report (for short “F.I.R.”) as “Maratha Yodha”. Even when the informant tried to intervene and advise the applicant not to use such derogatory remarks and abusive language towards Mr. Manoj Jarange Patil, still the applicant continued directing abuse towards the said person. The informant therefore, alleges that the words used are disrespectful and “hurting religious feelings” of the Maratha community. It is

further alleged in the F.I.R that applicant’s entire behavior, language and conversation with the informant and the waiter was recorded in the mobile phone and the same was also submitted to the police during the registration of the subjected F.I.R. It is a matter of record that the police therefore, on receipt of information from respondent No. 2 registered an offence vide Crime No. 0351of 2023 for the offences punishable under Section 295A and Section 504 of I.P.C against the present applicant. It is also important to mention that the contents of the F.I.R itself disclose that the present applicant tendered apology to the informant on spot about his act of directing abuses to Mr. Manoj Jarange Patil. The record produced before us shows that applicant came to be arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (for short “J.M.F.C”), Ausa and was then released on regular bail on certain terms and conditions.

5. On these foundationa