Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Accused in Provocative Speech Case

Sandeep Singh Attal's Bail Petition Rejected Amidst Allegations of Inciting Communal Disharmony

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Sandeep Singh Attal, also known as Sandvi, accused of making inflammatory remarks against the Purvanchal community. The court, presided over by Justice Sumeet Goel, concluded that the allegations against Singh, supported by electronic evidence and witness statements, warranted custodial interrogation to ensure a comprehensive investigation.

The case, registered under FIR No. 270 on October 21, 2025, in District Ludhiana, revolves around Singh's alleged derogatory remarks during an interview with co-accused journalist Sushil Machan. The remarks, targeting the dignity of women and the community at large, have been deemed capable of disrupting public order and communal harmony.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that Singh was falsely implicated and highlighted a lack of direct involvement. However, the court found the evidence, including a pen drive submitted by the complainant containing the provocative interview, to be substantial. The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation, citing the potential for concealed evidence and the seriousness of the accusations.

The State counsel opposed the bail, underscoring the gravity of the offense and the necessity to prevent similar unlawful activities. The court reiterated the Supreme Court's stance in the State v. Anil Sharma case, emphasizing the importance of custodial interrogation in eliciting crucial information.

Justice Goel highlighted the balance between individual rights and societal interests, stating that granting bail could undermine the investigation and embolden others to engage in similar conduct. The ongoing investigation aims to scrutinize electronic evidence and assess the involvement of other parties.

This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining public order and addressing offenses that threaten communal harmony. The denial of bail reflects the court's recognition of the broader societal implications of the alleged misconduct.

Bottom Line:

Anticipatory bail denied to petitioner accused of making provocative and inflammatory remarks against a community, as the allegations and evidence suggest a serious offence with potential to disturb public order and harmony.

Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 482; Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Sandeep Singh Attal @ Sandvi v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2816639