JUDGMENT S. Ali Ahmad, J. This is an application for bail. The petitioner was taken into custody on the 6th January, 1976, in connection with a case registered under Rule 43(5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. (Hereinafter referred to as Rule.) 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the night between 5th and 6th January 1976, the petitioner alongwith two others was writing slogans on the wall giving a call to the workers of industries to go on a hunger strike on the 6th January, 1976. They were writing the following slogans :- “Lay of Chhatni Talabandi Band Karo. 6 January, 76 Bonus Adhyadesh Ke Birudh Desh Bhar Men Sanketic Bhukh Hartal”. The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that Rule 184 stood in the way of the petitioner. It appears that the allegation against the petitioner is for contravention of Rule 43 (i)(c) which prohibits making, printing, publishing or distributing any document containing, or spreading by any other means whatsoever, any prejudicial report without lawful authority or excuse. Under sub-rule 5, aforesaid contravention is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years or with fine or with both. The important point, therefore, to be considered is, if the writing of slogans giving a call to the workers to observe a token hunger strike on the 6th January, 1976 or demanding ban on retrenchment or lockout was a prejudicial act.' Prejudicial Act' has been defined under Rule 36(6) of the Rules. It is difficult to appreciate how the aforesaid slogans can be said to come within the mischief of 'prejudicial act.' 3. The learned Government Pleader No.2 appearing for the State submitted that the activities of the petitioner will come within clause 'g' and 'j' of sub-rule 6 of Rule 36. It is not possible to accept this argument. Clause 'g', in my opinion, will be applicable only in such cases where feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of persons in India is sought to be promoted. Obviously the petitioner, by writing the aforesaid slogans, was not promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of persons in India. Clause 'g', in my opinion, will be applicable only in such cases where feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of persons in India is sought to be promoted. Obviously the petitioner, by writing the aforesaid slogans, was not promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of persons in India. Clause 'j' also will be applicable to such cases only where the Act, is intended or is likely to cause or produce, or to instigate or incite, directly or indirectly, the cessation, or slowing down of work by a body of persons employed in any place of employment. The slogans which I have quoted above did not instigate or incite even indirectly the cessation or slowing down of work by any class of people. All that the slogans amounted to were the demands to the Government to ban Law of Retrenchment and Lockout. The other slogan was an appeal to the people to observe a token hunger strike in protest against the Bonus Ordinance. No provision of Law has been shown to me which makes the aforesaid action of the petitioner an offence. 4. In my opinion, therefore, there are good grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged contravention. The result, therefore, is that the application is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail of Rs. 1,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. Application allowed.