Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Sandeep Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC No. 29490 of 2026, 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 289), delivered an important order reiterating that criminal liability for statements allegedly affecting religious harmony cannot be inferred merely from the use of inappropriate language. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, Justice Devnarayan Mishra observed that the intention behind the words used and the context in which they were spoken are crucial factors in determining whether an offence relating to public mischief or communal disharmony is made out.
The case arose from an FIR registered against programme host Sandeep Kumar under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with statements conducive to public mischief. The allegations stemmed from a cultural programme organised by U.S. Agro Seeds Company, where devotional singer Shahnaz Akhtar was performing. During a break in the programme, the applicant allegedly recited a doha concerning the abduction of Goddess Sita and made remarks that some members of the audience considered disrespectful to Lord Ram and Goddess Sita.
Following objections from certain attendees, a complaint was lodged alleging that the remarks had the potential to hurt religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony. The registration of the FIR led the applicant to approach the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The principal issue before the Court was whether the material placed on record disclosed a prima facie intention to incite religious disharmony or whether the incident reflected an unfortunate choice of words without any criminal intent.
The order assumes significance because it highlights the distinction between offensive expression and criminal conduct. It underscores that, particularly at the stage of deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must assess whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie established rather than proceed merely on the basis of public outrage or the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Arguments of the Parties:
The applicant contended that the allegations were based on a complete misunderstanding of the context in which the disputed doha was recited. According to the defence, he was not expressing his personal opinion regarding Lord Ram or Goddess Sita but was narrating a fictional conversation said to have taken place among the residents of Lanka following the abduction of Goddess Sita. It was submitted that the words “Sita would destroy Lanka” formed part of that narration and were intended to convey the fear prevailing among the people of Lanka, including Mandodari, the wife of Ravana.
The applicant argued that his recital was part of a cultural programme and not a speech aimed at provoking any section of society. He maintained that there was no intention to insult any religious figure, hurt the sentiments of devotees, or create hostility between different communities. The defence further emphasised that criminal intent is an essential ingredient of the offence alleged under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that no material existed to establish such intention.
It was also pointed out that when objections were raised by members of the audience during the programme, the applicant immediately expressed regret and publicly apologised. A video recording of the event was produced before the Court showing the applicant seeking forgiveness and clarifying that he had no intention of hurting anyone’s religious beliefs. According to the defence, this conduct demonstrated his bona fides and substantially weakened the prosecution’s allegation that he had deliberately attempted to create communal disharmony.
On these grounds, the applicant submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that he deserved the protection of anticipatory bail.
The State opposed the application, arguing that the allegations involved remarks touching upon revered religious figures and therefore carried serious consequences. According to the prosecution, such statements had the potential to inflame public sentiment and disturb social harmony. It was submitted that granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances could send an undesirable message that individuals may make irresponsible statements concerning religious beliefs without facing legal consequences.
The prosecution further argued that offences involving public mischief and religious sensitivity require careful handling because even isolated statements may adversely affect public order. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the State urged the Court not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the material placed before it, including the video recording of the programme, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. Justice Devnarayan Mishra held that, at the present stage of the proceedings, the available material did not prima facie establish that the applicant intended to hurt religious sentiments or promote communal disharmony.
The Court observed that the context in which the disputed doha was recited assumed considerable importance. A careful viewing of the video indicated that the applicant was narrating a conversation allegedly taking place among the inhabitants of Lanka after the abduction of Goddess Sita. In that narrative, it was suggested that the people of Lanka believed that the arrival of Goddess Sita would ultimately bring destruction upon the kingdom. The Court noted that the recital was part of this narration and not necessarily an expression of the applicant’s personal beliefs.
Justice Mishra acknowledged that the words chosen by the applicant may not have been appropriate and could understandably invite criticism. However, the Court emphasised that the mere use of inappropriate or insensitive language cannot automatically lead to criminal prosecution unless the essential ingredients of the offence are satisfied. Criminal law requires the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge, particularly where allegations involve statements likely to disturb public tranquillity or religious harmony.
The Bench found no material at the anticipatory bail stage to indicate that the applicant intended to incite violence, provoke communal hatred, organise riots, or disturb public peace on religious grounds. The Court specifically observed that there was nothing to suggest that the recital was delivered with the objective of creating mischief, affray, or disharmony among different religious groups.
An important circumstance considered by the Court was the applicant’s conduct immediately after objections were raised. The video produced before the Court showed that he publicly apologised and sought forgiveness from the audience. The Court regarded this as a relevant circumstance indicating that the applicant did not persist with the disputed remarks or attempt to justify them after concerns were expressed. Instead, his immediate apology reflected an effort to address the audience’s grievance and reduce any misunderstanding arising from the recital.
The Court also reiterated the settled principle governing anticipatory bail that the purpose of such relief is not to determine guilt or innocence but to assess whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary and whether the allegations disclose a prima facie case warranting arrest. Since the investigation could continue without taking the applicant into custody and the material on record did not disclose a deliberate intention to commit the alleged offence, the Court held that the applicant deserved the protection of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was allowed. The order makes it clear that the observations recorded by the Court are confined to the consideration of the bail application and shall not influence the merits of the trial or the investigation. The investigating agency remains free to complete its inquiry in accordance with law, while the trial court will independently evaluate the evidence if a charge-sheet is ultimately filed.
The decision reinforces an important principle of criminal jurisprudence that context, intention, and surrounding circumstances are indispensable while examining allegations relating to speech and religious sentiments. It also emphasises that criminal prosecution cannot be founded merely upon offensive language unless there is prima facie material demonstrating the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence. By granting anticipatory bail, the High Court balanced the need to protect public order with the equally important constitutional principle that personal liberty should not be curtailed in the absence of material indicating deliberate criminal intent.