The anticipatory bail motion submitted by a professor at a law college for allegedly making words that hurt the feelings of the Hindu Community was recently denied by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench on December 21.

being Professor he is in a position to incite the mind of the students and most of the important difference is that Hon'ble Supreme Court granted stay on the arrest of the co-accused Inamur Rahman in connection of the instant offence but no such protection has been provided to the present applicant; in view of the material evidence available on record against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant at this stage.

In rejecting the request for anticipatory relief, Justice Anil Verma said that the applicant could upset social order because he is a professor and can influence his pupils' thoughts-

…from perusal of the statement of the complainant Brajendra Singh, Dipendra, Ravi Pratap, Devesh, Kushal and other witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. it appears that present applicant is the Professor making statement which promotes enmity, hatred and ill-will between different sections of society, which hurts sentiment of Hindu community; act of the present applicant can disturb the communal peace of the society;…present applicant is the Professor, who regularly teaches and delivers lectures to the students of the aforesaid Law College and being Professor he is in a position to incite the mind of the students…

The applicant was a professor of constitutional law at the Law College in Indore, according to the case's facts. One of his students reported him to the police after learning that he and the other co-accused were encouraging the kids to read "Collective Violence and Criminal Justice System." It was claimed that the aforementioned book was based on inaccurate and unfounded information and had anti-national content that was meant to undermine religious harmony, national integrity, and public tranquilly. As a result, a FIR was filed against the applicant for violations of Sections 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 500, 504, 505, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

In support of his bail request, the applicant told the court that he neither bought nor promoted the aforementioned book. He wasn't in charge of the library's collection or a part of the committee that decided to buy the relevant book. He claimed that the accusations made against him are unfounded and without merit and that he is being included in legal procedures with the intent to harm his name. He further emphasized that the police had disregarded Section 41-A CrPC as mandatory notice-serving duty.

The Applicant also informed the Court that one co-accused had been granted a stay of proceedings following his detention by the Apex Court, and that as a result, he was entitled to assert a claim of parity with that co-accused. Since there was no evidence against him, it was prayed that he be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. 

The Court did not believe the case to be appropriate for the granting of anticipatory bail after reviewing the parties' arguments and the documentation on file. It was observed that, in light of the testimony of the witnesses cited in Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it appeared that the applicant was making statements in order to incite animosity and hatred among various communities and to damage the feelings of the Hindu Community.

With the aforementioned considerations, the Court determined that the applicant's application was without merit and rejected it as a result.

Case Title: MIRZA MOZIZ BEG VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60708 of 2022
Link: 

https://mphc.gov.in/upload/indore/MPHCIND/2022/MCRC/60708/MCRC_60708_2022_FinalOrder_21-Dec-2022.pdf