Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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