The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man accused of assisting in the production of controversial YouTube songs allegedly containing objectionable remarks against Hindu deities, observing that the prosecution failed to show any direct disruption of public order arising from his actions.
Justice Sameer Jain noted that Rajveer Singh Yadav was not originally named in the FIR. His name surfaced later during the police investigation after a co-accused allegedly claimed that he had supplied material used in the songs.
The case initially revolved around allegations against co-accused Saroj Sargam, who was accused of uploading songs on YouTube containing abusive references to Hindu gods and goddesses. According to the prosecution, Sargam later informed investigators that Yadav had played a supporting role in preparing the content, leading to his arrest shortly afterward.
While examining the matter, the Court pointed out that the FIR itself attributed the primary allegations of hurting religious sentiments only to the co-accused. The bench further observed that there was no material on record indicating that Yadav’s alleged conduct had triggered any law-and-order situation or public unrest.
The Court also expressed reservations over the State’s claim that Yadav had been absconding. It highlighted an apparent inconsistency in the police version, noting that a reward of ₹25,000 had reportedly been declared against him even though he was arrested within a brief period after being named in the investigation.
Another factor that weighed with the Court was the failure of authorities to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused at the time he was taken into custody. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana, the High Court observed that compliance with procedural safeguards remains an important consideration while deciding bail pleas.
The bench also took into account that Yadav had already spent more than six months in jail. It remarked that most offences invoked against him carry a maximum punishment of up to seven years and did not warrant indefinite pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
Reiterating the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the Court said bail cannot be withheld as a substitute for punishment before conviction.
Yadav has been directed to comply with standard bail conditions, including appearing before the trial court whenever required, refraining from influencing witnesses, and avoiding involvement in any criminal activity. The Court clarified that violation of these conditions could result in cancellation of bail.
