SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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