The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of removing national flag from a mosque in Gurugram’s Uton village and replacing it with a saffron flag [Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v State of Haryana]..Justice Manisha Batra noted that the allegations against the accused Vikas Tomar were not vague or general but specific and substantiated by the conversations between him and other accused.The Court also pointed to the impact of the offence on public order and communal peace, adding that a deeper and proper probe was required to be conducted in the case.“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage. No extraordinary or exceptional circumstance has been brought on record by the petitioner that would warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly in light of the serious communal and constitutional implications of the alleged conduct,” the Court said..According to the prosecution case, a complaint was received from Bilaspur Gurugram on July 7 that anti-social elements had removed the national flag from a mosque and put saffron flag there. The complainant also provided audio and video recordings to the police. The police initially arrested two accused in the case under various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971 but they were granted bail on July 7. However, a Sessions Court on July 15 denied anticipatory bail to the present petitioner Tomar. Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan in the order said that In a country like India, where people from various religions and ethnicity come together to live in same village, there are certain anti- social elements who for their petty goals and misconceived ideologies, try to tarnish the social fabric of the society..Chauhan also pointed to the recent communal tensions in Haryana and further remarked that any person of ordinary prudence and slightest of patriotism in his heart would not have dared to commit such a crime..However, the counsel representing Tomar argued before the High Court that he had no role to play in the entire case and was not even named in the First Information Report (FIR). On the other hand, the counsel representing the State and complainant argued that the accused wanted to create communal tension in the area.Considering the arguments, Justice Batra said that no extraordinary or exceptional circumstance had been brought on record by the accused that would warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly in light of the serious communal and constitutional implications of the alleged conduct.“This Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must and no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” it added, while dismissing the plea seeking anticipatory bail..Advocate Abhimanyu Singh represented the petitionerAdditional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana.Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant. [Read Order]
