Himachal Pradesh HC Allows Bail of the Petitioner Accused of Calling Casteist Slurs

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

In the present case of Karan Thakur vs State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner was allegedly accused of caste discrimination due to which an FIR was filed against him by the respondents under Sections 3(1)(S) of ST/SC Act and 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Based on the FIR, the petitioner was arrested. Subsequently, a bail petition was filed, which the Court allowed. The Coram constituted Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

Facts of the Case

As per the petitioner, a mother along with her son has accused the petitioner of practising caste discrimination with them. The complainant has accused the petitioner of calling slurs and insulting their caste after an argument happened between them. The complainant states that while she was travelling with her son, the petitioner’s vehicle was moving ahead of them. The complainant’s son horned to signal the vehicle ahead to give space to them so they could move ahead. But, the petitioner instead of giving them spaced stopped the vehicle, came out and started arguing with them and started insulting their caste. He also intimidated and threatened them. 

Consequently, the complainant filed an FIR under sections 3(1)(S) of ST/SC Act and 341 and 506  of the Indian Penal Code respectively against the petitioner’s said actions and the petitioner were arrested.

Subsequently, he filed a bail petition.

The petitioner has got interim protection earlier under this case and has been out since.

Arguments before the court

It had been summited that the custody of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is unnecessary. Also, the petitioner does not have any previous criminal antecedents. Moreover, he has accompanied the investigation while being out on interim protection.

Court’s Observation 

Based on the aforesaid statements of the petitioner and the status report, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. 

Court’s Judgement 

They held the case to be fit for bail and allowed the petition. Further, it was held that the bail of the petitioner could be terminated if the Court finds any valid reason to do so. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -