Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

31 Persons Got Bail - Raising Provocative Slogans In PFI Rally: Kerala HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court granted bail to 31 Popular Front of India (PFI) members who were arrested in May for allegedly shouting provocative slogans and disrupting communal harmony at a rally held in the Alappuzha district. [Ansar & Ors. v State of Kerala]

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas opined that, despite the seriousness of the allegations against the accused, they may be granted bail with conditions, taking into account the time they have already spent in custody and the stage of the investigation.

"Serious allegations are made against the petitioners. It is also alleged that a minor was used to shout the provocative slogans. Despite the gravity of the allegations, the petitioners have been detained since 24 May 2022, with the most recent arrest occurring on 4 June 2022. Consequently, all petitioners continue to be detained for at least 30 days. As far as petitioners are concerned, the investigation is nearly complete. The continued detention of the petitioners serves no purpose, despite the fact that two of the accused remain at large "stated the Court in its order.

The issue relates to the infamous 'Jana Maha Sammelanam' rally held by the PFI in Alappuzha district on 21 May 2022.

A video of a child on the shoulders of an adult man at the rally shouting provocative slogans threatening the destruction of certain religious groups went viral on social media.

Subsequently, the police filed a first information report (FIR) naming 33 individuals as suspects, of whom 31 were subsequently arrested for committing the following crimes:

All of these petitioners were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and engaged in rioting during the PFI rally by shouting provocative slogans, inciting feelings of disharmony, animosity, and hatred between different religions, and thereby interfering with the maintenance of religious harmony.

In addition, the prosecution alleged that one of the petitioners, the president of PFI, along with another defendant, caused a minor boy to shout provocative slogans while other defendants repeated the slogans, thereby harming communal harmony.

The petitioners argued that the alleged offences against them could not be sustained due to the nature of the allegations, and that the slogans were being misconstrued for ulterior motives, so no offence was established.

In addition, they argued that they had been incarcerated for a considerable amount of time and that their continued detention was no longer required.

The prosecution, on the other hand, opposed the granting of bail and argued that the accused attempted to disrupt the harmony that prevails in the state and that allowing such slogans to be shouted at rallies could have grave consequences.

It was asserted that the investigation is ongoing and that one of the suspects has not yet been arrested and another has not yet been identified.

The court concluded that detaining the petitioners any longer serves no purpose for the investigation and granted them bail under the following conditions:

  1. Petitioners shall be released on bail upon execution of a 50,000 bail bond with two solvent sureties for the same amount, satisfactory to the court with jurisdiction.
  2. Petitioners must appear every other Saturday between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. before the Investigating Officer;
  3. Petitioners are prohibited from intimidating or attempting to influence witnesses, as well as tampering with evidence.
  4. Petitioners are prohibited from committing similar offences while on bail;
  5. Petitioners may not leave Kerala without permission from the court with jurisdiction.

After videos of the PFI rally went viral, people of all religious and political persuasions mocked the video and expressed concern for the child's welfare, as did a number of Court judges.

Two days after the rally, Justice Gopinath P drew attention to the disturbing trend of children being coerced into participating in political rallies and shouting provocative slogans, and he opined that it must be stopped.

"Are they not creating a new generation that develops this religious intolerance? I was just wondering whether this child's mind will already be conditioned to this type of rhetoric by the time he becomes a major. There must be action taken, "The judge commented.

In fact, prior to the rally, a petitioner had petitioned the court to halt the activities of the rally's participants, citing several violent clashes and political murders that had occurred in Alappuzha in the preceding months. The Court then ordered the police to maintain law and order at the demonstration.

A week later, when the court ruled on the case, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan opined that the rally organisers should also be prosecuted, but refrained from issuing directions in this regard.

"If a rally participant raises provocative slogans, the rally organisers are also responsible. If a rally is held, it is the leaders' responsibility to maintain order among the participants "the Court stated in its ruling.

D.D: 05 JULY 2022

Ansar & Ors. versus State of Kerala

Latest Legal News