By Rajesh Pandey
Prayagraj: In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to two religious storytellers (kathavachaks) from Etawah district, Sant Singh Yadav and Mukat Singh Yadav, who were booked under serious charges related to insulting religious beliefs and cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The bail was granted by Justice Vivek Varma, who heard the matter and issued the order on July 29, after evaluating the nature of the allegations and the background of the case.
Details of the Allegations:
An FIR was filed at Bakewar police station in Etawah against the two kathavachaks, invoking:
-
Section 299 of the BNS (acts committed with the intent to insult religious beliefs), and
-
Section 318(4) of the BNS (cheating),
The charges stem from allegations that the narrators had misled people during religious events and misrepresented their caste identity through forged documents, allegedly to gain acceptance and prominence in upper-caste-dominated religious platforms.
Applicants’ Argument:
Counsel representing the applicants argued that the FIR against Sant Singh Yadav and Mukat Singh Yadav was a retaliatory action. The legal counsel stated that the applicants were assaulted and illegally detained by certain individuals during a religious event, simply because they were narrating religious texts despite not belonging to the upper castes.
The Kathavachaks had earlier lodged an FIR against those individuals for physical assault and unlawful confinement. In what they termed a “counter-blast”, the present FIR was registered against them, allegedly to malign their reputation and criminalize their religious service.
Court’s Observations:
While granting anticipatory bail, the court observed that:
“Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact that earlier the applicant lodged a first information report against the informant; further, the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are not made out against the applicant; at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence; without commenting on merits of the case, I think that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.”