Ram Singh v. State of Punjab
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Crl. M. M-32797/2010
Before Justice S.S. Saron
Decided on November 10, 2010

Relevancy of the case: Pre-arrest bail in a case involving indecent recording against Sikh religion

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 34, 295A, 506)
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66A)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The complainant is working as waterworks operator for 20-22 years in village Dhandi Khurd and knew all residents of the village.
• In the meanwhile, a young man was listening very carefully to a recorded voice on his mobile phone. The recorded voice was related to the Sikh religion, therefore, the complainant asked him to recite the same but he refused.
• On persuading, he played the recording from his mobile phone on the hand-free mode in a loud voice. The recording was related to the Sikh prayer (‘Ardas’) which was very indecent and had been recorded by distorting the words.
• The complainant on hearing the same was hurt. He asked the name of the person who had recorded the said recording.
• The complainant then put that mobile phone in his pocket. In the meantime, the petitioner got his father there and asked the complainant about the mobile phone. The complainant, however, made them hear a wrong recording.
• The petitioner and his father abused the complainant and went away after threatening to kill him. The complainant requested that strict action shall be taken against the persons who insulted the Sikh religion and hurt the religious sentiments.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

The petitioner’s counsel:

• Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR has been registered on absolutely false allegations and no case is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been involved by the complainant to take revenge from him. In any case, it is submitted that the FIR contains mere allegations and the petitioner has cooperated during the investigation.

Opinion of the Bench

• The learned Sessions Judge has noted in her order that though the petitioner had joined the investigation, he failed to produce the mobile phone and memory card that contained the said recording. At the same time, it has not been denied that his father did not snatch the mobile phone from the complainant and gave it to him.

Final Decision

• In the facts and circumstances present, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. The petition is dismissed.

This case summary has been prepared by Mansi Vats, an undergraduate student at UPES School of Law, Dehradun, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.