Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Personal Liberty in Bail Grant for Alleged Emblem Morphing
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made a significant ruling by granting bail to a 60-year-old advocate accused of violating the sovereignty and integrity of India through the alleged morphing of the Ashoka Chakra. The court emphasized that the absence of material evidence does not justify continued custody, reinforcing the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive in nature.
Court's Emphasis on Constitutional Rights and Evidence
Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, while hearing the plea, underscored a well-settled legal principle: deprivation of personal liberty must be justified by compelling reasons. The court noted that there was no material placed to show that the petitioner posed a threat to law and order or public peace, nor was he a habitual offender likely to abscond or tamper with evidence. This decision aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.
The order stated, "The court is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence or to determine conclusively whether the alleged acts satisfy the ingredients of Section 152 of BNS," indicating that such issues should be decided during the trial. Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
Background of the Alleged Offense
The petitioner, along with two co-accused, was alleged to have:
- Fixed banners replacing the three lions in the Ashoka Chakra with bull faces, morphing them into a pair of pants and a police belt.
- Altered the wheel in the center of the emblem to show more than 24 spokes.
- Morphed the horse and bull into images depicting a man shooting another man with a gun on one side and a Swastika symbol on the other.
- Changed the word "Satyameva Jayate" to "Satyameva Parajayate" and added the phrase "Let's fight against Hindu Fascism".
It was alleged that these acts were intended to create conflict between communities, leading to charges of damaging law and order and violating national sovereignty.
Legal Arguments and Court's Findings
The petitioner's counsel argued that the signature on the confessional statement was obtained coercively and that, in the absence of compelling reasons for continued custody, denial of bail would violate constitutional rights. The court agreed, finding that:
- The prosecution's case largely relies on documentary and electronic material already seized.
- No evidence suggests the petitioner is a habitual offender or poses a flight risk.
- Pre-trial detention should not serve as punishment, and liberty must be preserved unless absolutely necessary.
Consequently, the court held that the absence of material evidence does not justify continued custody, and the petitioner is entitled to bail with appropriate conditions to address prosecution concerns.
This ruling highlights the judiciary's commitment to balancing national security interests with fundamental rights, ensuring that legal processes uphold justice without undue infringement on personal freedoms.
