IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

“In the name of freedom of expression, the laxman rekha should not be crossed.” : HP High Court Dismisses Bail Application for make derogatory remarks on Bhagwaan Bhole Shankar and Shivling.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 24 July 2023, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Virender Singh, has dismissed the bail application of Dr. Nadeem Akhtar in connection with alleged derogatory comments posted on Facebook against religious figures. The judgment, delivered on 24th July, 2023, emphasized the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need to respect the religious sentiments of others.

Justice Virender Singh stated in the judgment, “While residing in the society, it is the duty of every person to give due respect to the religious belief of other members of the society. In the name of freedom of expression, the laxman rekha should not be crossed.”

The case stemmed from an FIR registered under Sections 295-A, 153A, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, following complaints by local authorities and religious organizations about offensive Facebook posts allegedly made by Dr. Nadeem Akhtar, a qualified ophthalmologist running a private clinic in Mehatpur, Himachal Pradesh.

The police presented digital evidence indicating Dr. Akhtar’s involvement in the comments. Demonstrations and law and order concerns arose in the area due to the alleged comments, and the police expressed apprehensions about potential communal disharmony if bail were granted.

Justice Singh highlighted the applicant’s status in society and the responsibility that accompanies it. “The applicant is not a layman, but an educated person, who is well aware of the effect of his alleged post and comments. He ought to have exercised more caution before allegedly making the comments or putting posts on his Facebook account,” the judgment read.

The Court dismissed the bail application, stating, “Allowing the bail application in this case will also give a wrong signal to the society and encourage other persons to make such type of comments, allegedly causing resentment in the minds of followers of other religions, which is also not good for the secular fabric of the country.”

The judgment reiterated that while deciding the question of bail, courts must balance individual liberty with the larger interest of society. “Freedom of expression must be exercised responsibly and should not infringe upon the religious beliefs and sentiments of others,” Justice Singh emphasized.

Date of Decision: 24th July, 2023.

Dr. Nadeem Akhtar vs State of Himachal Pradesh          

Latest Legal News