Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to two linked with SFJ in sedition, UAPA cases
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to two persons, allegedly with links to the Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) being tried under the sedition law.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to two persons, allegedly with links to the Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) being tried under the sedition law.
The Duo, Dharminder Singh, alias Fauji, and one more were booked for various offences in an FIR in May 2018, including 124-A (sedition) and under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, at police station Rangar Nangal in Batala. They were behind bars for nearly four years.
The bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj took note of the fact that the constitutional validity of Section 124-A of the IPC is already pending consideration before the apex court and the proceedings before the trial court cannot even otherwise continue as the entire trial is integral and cannot proceed independently of Section 124-A IPC.
As per lawyer, Arnav Sood, the allegations were of petitioners having some link with an illegal organisation, Sikhs for Justice and the organisation aiding them financially in executing various illegal and unlawful activities.
The court observed that in view of the developments in the Supreme Court, it does not appear probable in any near future that the trial is likely to make any progress.
The court also remarked that sedition law provisions were recently applied in a spate of cases where people protested against established governments for seeking acceptance of their demands, bringing back the focus on the sedition laws. It is not that every mischief would fall in the description of the offence. Laws like sedition need narrower and stricter interpretation and the acts charged off should reflect something more than expressing discontent against the state, it further recorded, adding that in a democratic set-up, there always would be voices of dissent and opinions against rules and protest against actions. Some protests may have aggression but still, an act of dissent would not be ordinarily labelled as sedition, it further said, adding that to attract an offence such as Section 124-A of the IPC, there must be deliberate resistance and conscious defiance of authority with a conceived plan aimed to unsettle elected government.
In view of the custody period of petitioners, coupled with the fact that a serious dispute has arisen about the provisions invoked against them, the court passed the bail order. However, asked the accused persons that the Station House Officer (SHO) of the area where they reside be informed and accused persons would share their mobile numbers with him. They have also been told to appear every alternate Monday before the SHO.
