Chandigarh: Surprised at the decking fee called by the police Haryana against a young child who had made a deception call to stop the train he missed, a local court in Faridabad described the case as abuse of incitable law.
Guaranteed the defendant, the judge observed that section 124-A (incitement) was added wrong in this matter only to worsen the violation committed by the applicant.
“Sho, GRP is present at the time of the argument and surrenders that in all such cases, the FIR has been registered for the commission of a violation that can be punished under the 124A IPC section and in this case, this section was added in this FIR after a higher education officer …
After going through this case record, the public prosecutor failed to convince the court that how the provisions of the 124A IPC were interested in this because there was no intention of the applicant to bring or to try to bring hatred or insult to the government.
“” The judge was held.
Additional session Faridabad Judge Narender Sura passed this order while providing guarantees to Anshul Agnihotri (22), a resident of Mohalla Hatwara, District Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh (UP).
Around 24:40 on December 29, 2020, information was received on a train that trained No.
02173 Shree Dham Express, who will depart from Nizamuddin to Jabalpur, has several explosive substances in a red bag.
The police took action and the information was found wrong.
The applicant was arrested and during the investigation, it was revealed that he had spread rumors to take the train.
He has been detained since January 3, 2021.
In the defense of his guarantee, advice to be accused of proposing that the applicant has been involved in this case and even if the prosecution case was taken like that, even then the accusation against the applicant was about making a call to the train authority about maintaining explosives In Shree Dham Express from his cellphone but part 124a (incitement) IPC has been added only to worsen violations.
The advice argues that even if the accusation is taken like that, even though the incitement violations are not available by any imagination.
The court was told that other violations mentioned in FIR were part 505 IPC (Public Mischief) and the punishment specified in Section 505 (1) IPC was a sentence of up to three years or both.
He added that it was a clear cutting case of the abuse of the 124A IPC section (Hugtion Law).
The Public Prosecutor, however, was submitted that the applicant had committed a violation that could be punished under Section 174 and another part of the Actway Act, 1989 and the section would be added when the investigation was still delayed.
After hearing the two parties, the judge provided a guarantee to the allegations and directed the public prosecutor to send a copy of the order to a higher police officer to tell them about the misuse of the IPC 124A section.