news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail in seditious case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 14: 1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu YP Kotwal rejected the bail application of one Mohd Waqar Ahmed son of Mohd Bashir of Saaj Thanamandi, Tehsil Thanamandi, District Rajouri was involved in a seditious case.
Court after hearing both the sides observed that perusal of the report called from the concerned police station reveals that upon information received from the reliable sources that one Mohd Waqar Ahmed, the applicant herein, with criminal intention had made a video clip viral to excite disaffection towards the order of Government of India regarding abrogation of article 35-A, 370 and that the said remarks/post on the social networking may create law and order problem in the area and upon a complaint filed by District Magistrate Jammu. A case FIR No. 163/2019 under section 124-A RPC has been registered against the accused in P/S Channi Himmat Jammu.
Court further observed that as noticed above, the applicant claims his right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in part III under article 19 (1) (9) of the Constitution of India however, he should also know that under part IV i.e article 51 (a) of the Constitution of India fundamental duties of every citizen have been specified. Moreover, rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. The applicant appears to be an educated person, he may have any political affiliation or ideology, he has every right to pursue that but it can be only within the framework of our constitution. India is a living example of unity in diversity.
Freedom of speech enjoyed by every citizen can be subjected to reasonable restriction under article 19 (2) of the constitution.
The applicant by uploading the video messages on social media has exceeded the limits of the freedom of speech of expression as the same has allegedly caused hatred and dissatisfaction towards the Government of India. The offence allegedly committed by the accused/applicant herein, is of serious nature, investigation of the case is at initial stage, so admitting the accused to bail at this stage when as per investigating agency there is involvement of other persons who have not yet been arrested, will badly effect the investigation of the case.
There is force in the arguments of Ld. PP that in order to take the investigation to its logical conclusion custodial interrogation of applicant is required. With these observations, court rejected the bail application. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
