In a bail application filed before the Allahabad High Court to release the applicant booked under Sections 109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5), 191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1), 196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2), 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the applicant was part of an unlawful assembly which committed an offence against the State and thus, rejected the bail application.
A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 26-05-2025, alleging that the President of Ittefaq Minnat Council, Maulana Taukir Raza, had called upon the Muslim community to assemble in the field of Islamia Inter College to demonstrate against the State for atrocities and the lodging of false cases against the Muslim youth.
Not only did the police request the Muslim community not to go ahead, but Section 163 of BNS was also in force, which prohibited any assembly of more than five persons. It was found that 500 people had assembled in Biharipur and had recited slogans against the government, as well as raised the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda”. They assaulted the police men and damaged several police and private vehicles on the spot. As a result, seven people, including the applicant, were arrested.
The Court noted that a crowd of more than 500 people had assembled and made slogans against the State as well as the above-mentioned objectionable statement at the instigation of Maulana Taukir Raza and another INC leader. The Court referred to certain provisions, stating that the offence of blasphemy or disrespecting any religion or God is punishable under BNS, and that BNS addresses all situations in which any person disrespects any religion or God, or attempts to promote enmity between religious groups by chanting any slogan or visible representation.
Therefore, the Court held that chanting “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” amounts to challenging the sovereignty and integrity of India and the Indian legal system, which is based on solemn constitutional objectives rooted in democratic principles. It was said that any slogan by a crowd that imposes a death sentence contrary to the punishment provided by BNS or other criminal law is not only against the constitutional object but also a challenge to the lawful authority of the Indian legal system, and is punishable under Section 152 of BNS.
Further, the Court held that chanting slogans by any person or crowd is not an offence unless they are maliciously used to intimidate persons belonging to other religions. It was said that though the objectionable statement in the present matter did not have any trace in the Quran or any other religious Muslim text, even then, the same slogan is used widely by Muslims without knowing its correct meaning.
The Court stated that after partition in 1947, the Pakistan government enacted the blasphemy law according to which any person disrespecting the religion or the Quran would be liable to receive punishment. Thereafter, in 1982, the Pakistani Army Commander Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq amended the law by adding Section 295-B, which states that if any person disrespects the Quran, such a person would be liable to be punished with life imprisonment or death. In tracing the history of Pakistan, the Court noted that the said slogan was first used under the leadership of Mulla Khadim Hussain Rizvi.
The Court held that the objectionable statement raised is a challenge to the authority of law as well as the sovereignty and integrity of India since the same incites people to armed rebellion and is therefore not only punishable under Section 152 of BNS but also against the basic tenets of Islam.
Lastly, while rejecting the bail of the applicant, the Court held that there was sufficient material showing that the applicant was part of an unlawful assembly that raised objectionable slogans and caused injuries to police personnel, along with damaging public as well as private property, because of which there was no ground to release him.
Appearances:
For Applicant(s) – Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi
For Opposite Party(s) – G.A.
