Delhi: Suspect in Jantar Mantar hate slogan case denied bail

Additional sessions judge Anil Antil, on August 27, denied relief to Preet Singh, and said the accused participated in the event in his individual capacity and as the main organiser of the event itself.

A Delhi court has denied bail to a man accused of raising inflammatory slogans during an event at Jantar Mantar on August 8, saying that even though the right to assemble and freedom to air thoughts are cherished under the Constitution, these are not absolute and have to be exercised with inherent reasonable restrictions.

Security personnel and demonstrators seen during a protest against communal hatred at Jantar Mantar, in New Delhi. (Sanchit Khanna/HT file photo)

Additional sessions judge Anil Antil, on August 27, denied relief to Preet Singh, and said the accused participated in the event in his individual capacity and as the main organiser of the event itself.

The judge also said the accused is “clearly seen” actively participating in the incendiary speeches along with his other associates.

A video of anti-Muslim sloganeering during a protest at Jantar Mantar was widely circulated on social media, following which the Delhi Police registered a case in connection with the matter on Monday. Hundreds of people had attended the protest organised by “Bharat Jodo Aandolan” at Jantar Mantar on August 8.

On August 27, the judge noted that the event at Jantar Mantar was conducted despite the Delhi Police denying them permission for the same.

“It is apposite to mention that the applicant not only voluntarily organised the event but also actively participated and provided support to the views and contents of inflammatory speeches, which were being made by the participants/accused persons at that time, by acknowledging and endorsing via gestures and clapping intermittently,” the court said.

He said given the stature of the accused, it was expected that he ought to have exercised his authority, in these circumstances, and prevented participants from the airing such inflammatory opinions in the larger interest of the public and committee welfare.

“In addition, on prima facie analysis of the inflammatory and incendiary content of the speeches or interviews of the participants members of the event, comments especially those pertaining in express pejorative references to a religious community, and keeping in view that the applicant was an active organiser of the event, he cannot later absolve himself of the responsibility of the content or consequences arising therefrom,” the court said.

The court also held that being an active, main organiser of the event, the accused was an influential personality and there was a possibility of him interfering with the investigation and influencing the witnesses of the case, if released on bail.

While opposing the application, the prosecution told the court that the accusations were severity in nature and the investigation was still at a nascent stage.

It also said a number of accused people were absconding and evading the process of law and the entire incriminating material is yet to be recovered.