The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of removing the national flag from a mosque’s top and replacing it with a saffron flag, calling the act a serious threat to communal harmony and peace.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied anticipatory bail to Vikas Tomar, who is accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Uton village, Gurugram, and replacing it with a saffron flag.
Justice Manisha Batra noted that the allegations against Tomar were specific and supported by recorded conversations with other accused individuals.
The Court emphasized the offense’s potential impact on public order and communal harmony, stating that a thorough investigation was necessary.
The Court remarked,
“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage. No extraordinary or exceptional circumstance has been brought on record by the petitioner that would warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly in light of the serious communal and constitutional implications of the alleged conduct,”
The prosecution’s case originated from a complaint received on July 7 in Bilaspur, Gurugram, alleging that anti-social elements had replaced the national flag at a mosque with a saffron flag.
The complainant provided audio and video evidence to the police.
Following this, police arrested two individuals under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, but they were granted bail the same day.
A Sessions Court, On July 15, denied anticipatory bail to Tomar.
Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan stated that in a diverse country like India, certain anti-social elements attempt to disrupt the social fabric for their personal motives. He also noted the recent communal tensions in Haryana, asserting that any person with a sense of patriotism would not engage in such actions.
Tomar’s counsel argued in the High Court that he had no involvement in the case and was not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR).
Conversely, the State’s counsel and the complainant’s attorney contended that the accused aimed to incite communal strife in the region.
After considering the arguments, Justice Batra concluded that no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances had been presented to justify the granting of anticipatory bail, particularly given the serious communal and constitutional implications involved.
Dismissing the bail plea, it stated,
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must and no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,”
Advocate Abhimanyu Singh represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana, and Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant.
Case Title: Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v State of Haryana
Read Attachment