Anirudh Singh Azad And Another v. State Of Bihar — 1976 DIGILAW 153 (PAT)

Judgment 1. This is an application for bail on behalf of the two persons who are accused in Deoghar P.S. Case No.14 dated 11th August 1975 under Rules 33(5) and 36(6) of the Defence of India Rules (I think the first informant meant Rule 36(6) read with Rule 43(1) of the Defence of India Rules). Petitioner Dilip Kumar Sharma was arrested on the 11lth of August 1975 and is in jail since then. Petitioner Anirudh Singh Azad was arrested on 11th of September 1975 and is in Jail since then. 2. The allegation against, the petitioners as contained in the first information report is that they were distributing pamphlet which, in the opinion of the first informant, was of a prejudicial character, bringing into hatred or contempt and also exciting disaffection towards the Government of India. A copy of the pamphlet which these petitioners were distributing has been produced before me. Besides distributing pamphlet, petitioner Dilip Kumar Sharma was found to be in possession of a book captioned "Viplabi Shahidon Ki Amar Gatha-Rakta Panktiyan", by Sri Sudhir Kumar Rai, Editor of Bihar-Bani. The book has also been produced before me. I have gone cursorily through the contents of the book. It has been published on the 15th of August 1974 and the index of the articles contained in it shows that the author has depicted the life and sacrifices of some of the great-men of India. It bears a foreward by Sri Krishna Ballabh Sahay, one of the ex-Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar. I do not see how this book could be treated as a book inciting disaffection towards the Government of India or to bring it into haired or contempt of the public. The book depicts the life of great men, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and of several martyrs who went to the gallows for the country. Amongst the men of the past ages, the book describes; of the lives of Rama, Krishna, Birsho Bhagwan and of the like. A book which contains the life of such persons, which has inspired the nation in the past, cannot be considered as a book inciting disaffection or haired or contempt against the Government of India. About the book, I will leave it at that. 3. I will take the pamphlet. A book which contains the life of such persons, which has inspired the nation in the past, cannot be considered as a book inciting disaffection or haired or contempt against the Government of India. About the book, I will leave it at that. 3. I will take the pamphlet. Bitter criticism is contained in it against the measures taken by the Government by declaring the state of Emergency in the country. The pamphlet has described Shrimati Indira Gandhi as a dictator and a warning is contained in the pamphlet that dictators 20 the same way as Ravana, Kansa, Julius Caeser and Hitler. It further contains an advice to the nation that the Government by Shrimati Indira Gandhi must be opposed fearlessly, and for that purpose, it has advised the people to come to the fold of Chhatra Sangharsh and Lok Sangharsh Samitees. Distribution of this pamphlet has been described by the first informant as "prejudicial act" within the meaning of Rule 36(6) of the Defence of India Rules. According to the first informant, the contents of the pamphlet were intended to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. The pamphlet was also intended to promote feelings of enmity and hatred among the different classes of persons of India. I do not find in what way the contents of the pamphlet could be treated as one promoting feeling of enmity and hatred among different classes of persons. A plain reading of the pamphlet shows that it is not so. The entire attempt of the pamphlet is to direct the attention of the people in India towards the Government by Shrimati Indira Gandhi. The pamphlet intends the people to remove that Government. On these facts the question which immediately arises is whether the contents of the pamphlet could be termed as "prejudicial act" within the meaning of Rule 36(6) of the Defence of India Rules. 4. The expression "prejudicial act" has been given various connotations and meanings in the said provision of the Defence of India Rules. One of them is to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. 4. The expression "prejudicial act" has been given various connotations and meanings in the said provision of the Defence of India Rules. One of them is to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. This Court in the case of Debi Soren V/s. State, AIR 1954 Pat 254 = (1954 Cri LJ 758) was seized with the question as to whether certain speeches made by the accused were seditious speeches, making the accused liable to be punished under Sec.124-A of the Indian Penal Code. A part of the speech was like this : "The Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act ought not to have been extended in this area. The Act is only for oppressing and to bind us down uselessly. We are prosecuted falsely. They arrested us only for harassment... ... ... We will not take rest unless we achieve Jharkhand. Whatever you have heard here, keep it in your mind and act accordingly... .. ... ..." With regard to the speech, their Lordships observed: "... ... ... ... In a democratic country such criticisms are to some extent unavoidable, they are made for the purpose of enlisting popular support, and in considering the effect of such criticisms no serious notice ought to be taken of crude, blundering attempts or of rhetorical exaggeration by which nobody is likely to be impressed ....... As Lord Sumner pointed out with the change of times, the effect of criticisms also changes; what was damaging contempt or hatred of a bureaucratic Government is not so of a popular Government - a Government which can neither afford to be hyper sensitive, nor impervious, to criticism." In the case of Niharendu Dutt Majumdar V/s. Emperor, AIR 1942 FC 22 = (43 Cri LJ 504), the Federal Court observed : "... ... hard words break no bones, and the wisdom of the Common law has long refused to regard as actionable any words which, though strictly and literally defamatory, would be regarded by all reasonable men as no more than mere vulgar abuse. Abusive language, even when used about a Government, is not necessarily seditious, and there are certain words and phrases which have so long become the stock in trade of the demagogue as almost to have lost all real meaning." 5. Abusive language, even when used about a Government, is not necessarily seditious, and there are certain words and phrases which have so long become the stock in trade of the demagogue as almost to have lost all real meaning." 5. The above two decisions were in respect of speeches delivered by persons, whereas the case in view relates to the contents of a pamphlet which has been distributed by the petitioners. But all the same the contents of it, though couched in a very harsh language are not more than hurling of abuses against the party in power of the Government. Whatever else may be said about its contents, possibly it is difficult to call it an act of exciting disaffection, hatred or contempt against the Government of India. Unless the action is such as may tend to disrupt the Government by inciting violence, it would be difficult to call it an act inciting disaffection, hatred or contempt against the Government. 6. I have made all these observations because of the quick inference which the first informant has tried to draw on seeing the pamphlet and the book. 7. In my opinion, on the facts stated, the petitioners may not be guilty of the contravention of Rules 33(5) and 36(6) read with Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rules and consequently, they must be released on bail. Let the petitioners be released on furnishing bail of Rs. 2,000.00 (Two thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. The application is, accordingly, allowed.