Comedian Munawar Faruqui, accused of hurting religious emotions, gets bail from Supreme Court
[ad_1]
The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to comedian Munawar Faruqui in a case registered by the Madhya Pradesh police for hurting religious sentiments.
In a quick listening to, a three-judge Bench led by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman additionally stayed a manufacturing warrant issued by the Uttar Pradesh authorities in opposition to Mr. Faruqui in a separate case primarily based on the identical information.
Also learn: Taking offence has been elevated to status of a much-loved indoor sport, Kunal Kamra tells Supreme Court
Justice Nariman stated the allegations in opposition to Mr. Faruqui have been imprecise. He famous that the police had not complied with the lawful process prescribed below Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) earlier than arresting the comic.
Justice Nariman identified that the Supreme Court, in a scathing judgment in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar in 2014, had warned State governments and their police from depriving private liberty with out following due course of of regulation. Arrest was not a software for harassment, the courtroom had warned.
Notice to police
“Tell us, Mr. Kirpal, did the police follow Section 41 before they arrested him?” Justice Nariman requested Mr. Faruqui’s lawyer.
Also learn: Freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right, says Bombay High Court
“No, My Lord… not at all,” Mr. Kirpal replied.
“Then that is all is needed for granting bail,” Justice Nariman stated, earlier than instantly issuing discover to the Madhya Pradesh police to clarify their actions.
“The procedure under Section 41 was not followed despite the Supreme Court having adumbrated the necessity of it in the Arnesh Kumar judgment of 2014,” Justice Nariman noticed, earlier than granting Mr. Faruqui “ad-interim bail”.
On January 28, the Madhya Pradesh HC refused bail, forcing the comic to attraction to the highest courtroom.
In the Arnesh Kumar judgment, the Supreme Court had delved into how “arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever”. The police had not learnt its lesson or shed its colonial picture regardless of a long time of Independence, the courtroom had noticed.
The judgment had endeavoured “to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically”.
“The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasised time and again by courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance, so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive,” the Supreme Court had noticed within the 2014 judgment, which turned the crux for grant of bail to Mr. Faruqui.
The judgment had held that cops who don’t comply with Section 41 could be answerable for departmental motion.
