05 February,2021 11:48 AM IST | New Delhi | mid-day online correspondent
Representational Image | File Pic
The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to stand-up comedian Munawar Faruqui and also issued notice to the Madhya Pradesh government on Faruqui's plea challenging HC order denying him bail in case of hurting religious sentiments
He was arrested on charges of "insulting Hindu Gods and Goddesses" during his show in Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
Munawar Faruqui was denied bail thrice before. The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to grant him bail on January 28.
A bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman noted that the Madhya Pradesh Police flouted the top court judgment in Arnesh Kumar versus Bihar of 2014, during Munawar's arrest.
ALSO READ
Fresh plea in SC seeks probe into US indictment of Adani
Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
Important matters heard by Supreme Court on Nov 22
Supreme Court to rule on removal of 'Secular' and 'Socialist' from Constitution
Supreme Court stresses on tree census in Taj Trapezium Zone
Faruqui, a resident of Gujarat, was arrested on January 2 along with four others on the allegations that he made derogatory remarks against Hindu gods during a stand-up show. The other arrested persons were identified as Edwin Anthony, Nalin Yadav, Prakhar Vyas and Priyam Vyas.
The bench also noted that his arrest did not follow procedure under section 41 CrPC.
The top court also granted him protection from being arrested by Uttar Pradesh police, which lodged a separate case, by staying the production warrant issued against him.
Faruqui's counsel submitted before the high court that he came on an invitation from the organisers of the comedy show and was though present on the spot at the show, did not utter anything as alleged. The high court, however, said: "In the light of the statements of the complainant and the witnesses referred above, the seized articles, viz., video footage of the show and the seizure memos detailed above, at this stage it is difficult to countenance to the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as complacency of the applicant cannot be ruled out, besides vulnerability of his acts in public domain. It is not a case of no evidence."
(With agency inputs)