The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted interim bail to the 22-year-old student who has been put in jail for tweeting objectionable content against Nationalist Congress Party chief Sharad Pawar.
A Division Bench of justices N.M. Jamdar and N.R. Borkwar was hearing a criminal petition filed by Nagpur resident Nikhil Bhamre, 22, seeking to quash six first information reports (FIRs) registered against him in different parts of Maharashtra.
He is booked under Sections 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, language and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 500 (punishment for defamation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 505 (statements conducting public mischief), and 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory) of the Indian Penal Code.
Five FIRs
Chief public prosecutor Aruna Pai said there are five FIRs against him and he is shown arrested in three. He was granted bail in one FIR while bail was rejected in two and now he had directly moved the High Court.
The court asked advocate Subhash Jha, appearing for Mr. Bhamre, about his argument for interim relief, to which he responded that Section 41A (notice of appearance before police officer) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed in any of the cases and he was arrested on May 31, 2022.
When Ms. Pai said, “The High Court must exercise its power under Article 226 (power of High Courts to issue certain writs) of the Indian Constitution with caution”, the court replied, “We know our powers. An element of public interest is involved here. He is a student, he has been in custody for a month. We will pass an order granting him bail. No coercive action in cases in which he hasn’t been arrested so far,” and posted the matter after three weeks.
In the last hearing, another Bench had refused to grant Mr. Bhamre relief and said, “There has to be some responsibility. Every citizen has fundamental rights, but these are subject to restrictions. Fundamental rights are not absolute. No one has the right to comment on someone else’s private life. Merely because one has the right does not mean he or she can exercise this right without any restriction,” the court had said.
