IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE  AT CHENNAI

UNDER SC & ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, CHENNAI

Present: Tmt. S.Alli, M.L.,

Special Judge/Principal Sessions Judge

Tuesday, the 3^rd day of October,  2023

Crl.M.P.No.24819/2023 in

Crime No.208/2023

Balavenkata Subramaniyan @ R.B.V.S. Maniyan                                                                    .. Petitioner/Accused

Vs

State by:

The Assistant Commissioner of Police,

1. Nagar Range, Chennai            .. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of M/s. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, J. Jaihar David, S. Divakar, S. Dilliraj, Balamanimaran,

1. Karthikeyan, Sivakumar, S. Manikandan, Counsel for the petitioner and of learned Special Public Prosecutor for SC & ST Act Cases for respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the following:

                                                                             ORDER

1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 14.9.2023  for the offence punishable underSection 153, 153 A(1)(a), 505(1)(b), 505(2) IPC and sec. 3(1) (r), 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of SC/ST  (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989  in Crime No. 208/2023  on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, a member of VCK Party lodged a complaintstating that this petitioner has delivered a hatred speech and attempted to cause disharmony between two different society of people. Hence, the complaint.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is innocent of theoffence. He has not committed any offence. The respondent without conducting any preliminary enquiry had arrested the petitioner.  In fact the entire speech of the petitioner was not taken into consideration, only in between lines were taken mischievously in a political vendetta and the complainant attached to a political party lodged this complaint and the respondent falsely proceeded against the petitioner. The speech comes under the purview of restricted speech under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India.  This petitioner is a senior citizen aged 76 years.  He is a social activist and he wrote many books.  He is a chronic patient of vertigo disease. Apart from that this petitioner suffering from several age related ailments. The petitioner has no bad antecedents. He is in custody from 14.9.2023. Earlier bail petition was dismissed because of short duration of custody. Now the petitioner has been in custody for 20 days and the initial period of remand was over and the respondent has not sought for any police custody.  The material part of investigation might have been completed by this time. At the time of remand extension, the petitioner has stated about his innocent before this court.  Now, the petitioner has been admitted to the Stanley Govt. Hospital and he was suggested to undergo surgery.   Considering the age, the ailments of the petitioner,  bail may be granted to him.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that this petitioner is a former VicePresident and a party functionary attached to Vishwa Hindu Parishad (a Religious movement) a religious fanatic party. He delivered hatred speeches as against the great leaders of this nation. The religious fanatics are in the practice of making hate speeches and derogatory speeches against the oppressed class people and political leaders who take rational views advocated by social thinkers such as Babasaheb, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar, Thanthai Periyar, Thatha  Rettaimalai Srinivasan etc.,   The petitioner in this case made a public speech on 13.9.2023 at T.Nagar with an intention to lower the image of the father of our Constitution Babasaheb Dr. B.R.Ambedkar comparing his remarkable work as a stenographer, typist and also made insinuating remarks against SC/ST people by addressing their case name in a degraded manner and thereby making hatred among two communities. The accused is attempting to cause disharmony among two different society of people.  The accused does not have any right to degrade any one much less than Babasaheb Dr. B.R.Ambedkar & Thol. Thirumavalavan.  The accused was not able to digest the fact that Babasaheb Dr. B.R.Ambedkar as the Chairman of Drafting Committee of Constitution who lend his major portion of life in drafting and contributing in making the world’s largest Written Constitution and become a remarkable person in history.  The petitioner/accused is an highly endangered person to the harmony of society and public order.  The accused with corrupted mind set is making insinuations and hate speech by causing mental agony to the oppressed class people which cannot be condoned at any stage. Earlier petition was dismissed on 25.9.2023 and there is no change of circumstance.  Hence, objects the grant of bail.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.9.2023 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day for the offences punishable under Section 153, 153 A(1)(a), 505(1)(b), 505(2) IPC and sec. 3(1) (r), 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The allegation against the petitioner is that he  made a public speech on 13.9.2023 at Bharathiya Vidha Bhavan, No.12,  Thanikachalam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai   with an intention to lower the image of Babasaheb Dr.B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman, Constitution Drafting Committee , comparing his remarkable work as a stenographer, typist and also made insinuating remarks against SC/ST people by addressing their caste name in a degraded manner and also the accused has made derogatory remarks in his speech against a political leader Thol. Thirumavalavan by addressing his community,  making hatred among two communities and thereby the  accused is attempting to cause disharmony among two different society of people.
7. The allegation is that this petitioner had delivered a hatred speech and attempted tocause disharmony between two different society of people. Admittedly, the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 76 and he is said to have been suffering from various ailments.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner has been admitted to Stanley Govt. Hospital and he was suggested to undergo surgery. Considering the medical necessity and the custody period, prays for granting bail.  Learned SPP objects for granting bail stating that there is no change of circumstances after dismissal of earlier petition. There was no specific denial with regard to the medical condition of the petitioner.  At the time of earlier bail application, the affidavit filed by the petitioner was not considered by this court because of the stage of the investigation.  But at the time of remand extension on 27.9.2023, the petitioner was produced before this court and at that time, he tendered unconditional apology stating that the statements made by him was unintentional and not with an intention to hurt the feelings of people of any community and also undertakes not to indulge in such activities in future.  Today, the Investigating Officer appeared before this court and submitted that investigation is almost over and prepared to file charge sheet within a short period.  The petitioner is in judicial custody from 14.9.2023.  The period for taking custodial interrogation is over.  Under such circumstances, considering the age of the petitioner, the stage of the investigation, the ailments suffered by the petitioner and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was suggested to undergo surgery and also the period of incarceration,  this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to condition.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing abond for a sum of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of this Court and on further condition that

• the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb impression in thesurety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity.
• that after discharge from the hospital, the petitioner is directed to appear beforethe respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders.
• the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial.
• the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
• On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/TrialCourt is entitled to take appropriate action against the above petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the above petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].
• If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229­A IPC.

Delivered by me today in the open Court.

S ALLI Digitally signed by SALLIDate: 2023.10.0316:49:50 +0530

Special Judge/Principal Sessions Judge

Copy to :

The Superintendent,  Central Prison, Puzhal.

nmk

Crl.M.P.No.24819/2023