Anticipatory bail granted to temple-vandalism accused absent criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 215/2021 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, for offences under Sections 147, 149, 295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with other persons, entered the premises of a public temple, threatened to remove and vandalise the idol of Shri Sai Baba, broke the idol with stones and a hammer, threw the pieces outside the temple, and burnt a life-size photograph behind the idol, thereby insulting the religious sentiments of the locality.

The applicant denied involvement and asserted that he had merely visited the temple to take blessings, as he routinely did, and that he was himself a devotee of Shri Sai Baba.

The State opposed the application, submitting that the applicant had been identified through photographs and videos of the incident and statements of local residents; it also confirmed that he had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant, accused of offences under Sections 147, 149, 295 and 295A IPC in connection with the alleged vandalisation of a religious idol, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

Whether, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s asserted false implication, the evidentiary material relied upon by the prosecution, and his absence of criminal antecedents, custodial arrest was necessary?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence, subject to appropriate conditions.

The alleged substantive offences were Sections 147 and 149 IPC concerning unlawful assembly and liability of members of an unlawful assembly, and Sections 295 and 295A IPC concerning injury or defilement of a place or object held sacred and deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

In exercising its discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the rival submissions, the material placed on record, and the absence of criminal antecedents, without expressing any final opinion on the merits.

The Court noted the prosecution’s reliance on photographs, videos and statements of local residents to implicate the applicant, but also considered his defence that he had been falsely named merely because he was present at the temple and that he was himself a devotee of Shri Sai Baba.

Upon examining the allegations, the material accompanying the application, the parties’ submissions, and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, the Court found it appropriate to extend the protection of anticipatory bail.

The Court expressly clarified that this assessment was made without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.

The protection was balanced by requiring the applicant to cooperate with investigation, refrain from influencing witnesses or obstructing a fair trial, and attend the trial court on every date fixed.

It directed that, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 215/2021, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The applicant was required to appear for interrogation when called, refrain from inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts, avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and appear before the trial court on every date fixed until conclusion of the proceedings.