Gurdas Maan granted interim stay on arrest by Punjab & Haryana High Court in religious sentiments case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Wednesday granted an interim stay on the arrest of Punjabi singer Gurdas Maan in a case involving hurting of religious sentiments registered against him (Gurdas Maan vs. State of Punjab).Justice Avneesh Jhingan reasoned that since Maan was a renowned singer, he was not a person who would be able to abscond and hide. Further, no recovery was required. Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to stay the arrest..The Single Judge also noted that the issue as to whether words used by Maan were deliberate or malicious, as is required Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, would be decided through investigation..The issue arose out of an FIR filed against the singer for hurting the religious sentiments of the Sikh community during a performance. The portion of the performance that gave rise to the FIR translates thus: “Do you know whose descendant my “Sarkar” is? He is from the lineage of the third incarnation of Guru Nanak, Guru Amar Das Ji Maharaj. How much fame and respect has he earned? A little spark is transmitted further; here it was much more. But Baba Murad Shah said if I have achieved twice as much, Sai Ji will achieve four times.”.Maan had initially approached a Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. However, his plea dismissed on the grounds that the offence was of a serious nature and no leniency was required. It was also stated that if bail was granted, it would aggravate people’s discontentment and spoil the State of Punjab’s peaceful environment. On rejection of the plea, Maan moved the High Court..It was argued that a bare perusal of the FIR shows that no offence under Section 295A can be made out against Maan and others as “deliberate and malicious intention” are essential to fasten liability under the provision..Counsel for Maan also contended that a wide interpretation of the provision in favour of the prosecution will result in infringement of Article 19(1)(a) by coming in conflict with academic freedom, legitimate historic research, critical evaluation of tradition, religious and social institution or a reformatory approach to inter-related questions of religion, dogma, tradition or caste..To fortify this argument, counsel for the petitioner lay emphasis on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, in which the principle of choosing an interpretation which would make the law consistent with the Constitution was reiterated.Further, it was argued that Maan was a Sikh by religion and an ardent devotee of all Sikh Gurus and practices. Therefore, he could not have hurt the Sikh community’s sentiments..In light of the arguments, the High Court found no requirement to prolong Maan's custody..Senior Advocate RS Cheema and Advocates Tarannum Cheema, Arshdeep Singh Cheema & Sadeev Singh Kang appeared for the Petitioners..[Read Order Here]