Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants

“Speech Acts are not mere words but capable of igniting disharmony when directed with illocutionary force and perlocutionary impact”— Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Sandeep Singh Attal @ Sandvi, observing that the petitioner’s alleged communal and inflammatory speech, circulated through a viral online interview, posed serious threats to public harmony. Justice Sumeet Goel, while invoking Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), declined to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the compelling necessity of custodial interrogation in the ongoing investigation.

The case arises from FIR No. 270 dated 21.10.2025 registered at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana, alleging offences under Sections 304, 196, 352, 353(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Court Rejects Plea That Petitioner Was Named Only in Supplementary Statement: “Material Cannot Be Brushed Aside”

The primary allegation against the petitioner, a singer with a significant online following, is that he gave a hate-motivated interview to co-accused journalist Sushil Machan, in which he made provocative, caste-targeted, and defamatory remarks against the Purvanchal migrant community from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, including disparaging references to women of that community. The FIR was supported by:

• The complainant’s statement and affidavit;

• A pen drive containing the controversial video interview;

• Statements from witnesses including Nitin Kumar, who alleged criminal intimidation and mobile snatching by the petitioner and his accomplices;

• A memorandum signed by several members of the Purvanchal community expressing outrage and concern over the viral content.

Despite arguments by the petitioner’s counsel that his name surfaced only through a supplementary statement, the Court held that such a plea cannot dilute the seriousness of the material collected: “At this stage, such material cannot be brushed aside as wholly unreliable and the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would hamper the ongoing investigation and undermine the effort to maintain communal harmony.”

Court Invokes Austin-Searle’s Speech Act Theory: “Hate Speech Must Be Judged Not Merely by Words But by Intention and Effect”

In a significant jurisprudential move, the Court applied Speech Act Theory—drawing on the philosophical work of J.L. Austin and John Searle—to emphasize that hate speech cannot be adjudged merely by its textual content, but must be evaluated based on its communicative intent and real-world effects.

Justice Sumeet Goel observed: “Every speech act involves a locutionary act (the words spoken), an illocutionary act (the speaker’s intention), and a perlocutionary act (the effect on the audience).” On this framework, the petitioner’s statements were viewed as deliberately constructed communicative acts aimed at inciting disharmony and targeting vulnerable migrant groups, particularly through caste and gendered humiliation.

Custodial Interrogation Is Not a Ritual: Bail Denial Anchored in Need for Effective Investigation

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that no further recovery is to be made from him, the Court underlined the qualitative necessity of custodial interrogation. The decision invoked the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, quoting:

“Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order… Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.”

Justice Goel held that the investigating agency must be granted full operational latitude to trace the digital origin, intent, and impact of the hate speech, especially in light of viral circulation and public unrest.

Bail in Hate Crime Cannot Be Routine: “Right to Pre-Arrest Bail Not Absolute Where Public Confidence Is at Stake”

Reiterating the Court’s role in balancing individual liberty with societal interest, the High Court held that anticipatory bail in such communal cases can embolden others and send a regressive signal to society. Justice Goel noted:

“Protection of such offenders at the stage of investigation would send a wrong signal to society and embolden others to indulge in similar unlawful activities… The power under Section 482 BNSS is not meant for those against whom prima facie serious allegations are supported by material collected during investigation.”

The Court also took cognizance of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, including an earlier FIR under serious offences like sedition and promoting enmity (FIR No. 118/2021 at Police Station Khara, Mohali), further justifying the refusal of pre-arrest protection.

Bail Denied in Light of “Grave Public Harm” Posed by Hate-Motivated Speech

Summing up the rationale, the Court categorically held that the magnitude of the offence, digital evidence, and its communal implications demanded a firm judicial approach. The petition was dismissed with the caveat that nothing in the order should be read as an expression of opinion on the merits of the investigation.

Date of Decision: 02.12.2025