The Court ruled that the substance of the charges were insufficient to warrant Tiwana’s detention, and thus granted him anticipatory bail.
“No purpose is going to be served, by interrogating the applicant, by taking him into custody. No slogans are said to have been raised by one community against another community, thereby directly instigating disharmony and creating hatred inter se two communities. In such scenario, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail.”
While issuing its order, the Court commented on the necessity for the State to focus on the factors that cause discord amongst communities and address them in a wise manner.
“The State must focus on different facets of the scenario, which ultimately results into disharmony, and address the same in such a prudent manner, as to ensure that there shall be no interference by any one community into the religious feelings of any other community, so as to ultimately achieve the goal of fraternity, as sought to be promoted by the Constitution.”
Source: Barandbench
