The Supreme Court on Friday directed the release on interim bail of stand-up comedian Munawar Faruqui who has been in jail for over a month on the charge of making indecent remarks on Hindu deities, accepting that none can be imprisoned without a valid reason and that the charges against him were vague.

The Gujarat-based Faruqui, who was arrested on January 1 along with four others on the complaint of a BJP MLA’s son for the allegedly blasphemous comments at an Indore cafeteria, had moved the apex court after Madhya Pradesh High Court had rejected his bail plea.

The comedian’s defence team had told the court that he was arrested before he could go on stage for a live show, contesting the claim that he had made objectionable remarks.

Faruqui, booked under IPC Sections 295A (outraging religious feelings), 269 (unlawful or negligent act likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life) and other relevant provisions, is lodged in a Madhya Pradesh jail.

The Supreme Court expressed surprise that its 2014 judgment in the Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar case wherein it had held that no citizen can be arrested without adequate reasons for any offence that entails a punishment of up to seven years in jail, had not been followed in Faruqui’s case. The court had held that arrest brings humiliation and is a violation of a person’s fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justices R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai on Friday also stayed a production warrant issued by a court in Uttar Pradesh for Faruqui as some local leaders had lodged complaints against him citing the Madhya Pradesh incident.

Senior advocate Saurabh Kripal, who appeared for Faruqui, told the bench that the comedian had been falsely implicated by the Madhya Pradesh authorities and alleged: “This is a case of victimisation.”

Justice Nariman, heading the bench, observed: “Is it correct that the Arnesh Kumar judgment is not followed in the case? If that is not followed, then it is good enough (for bail and stay of the high court judgment). Under Section 41 of the CrPC, the police cannot arrest a person without justifiable reasons.”

Kripal said the 2014 judgment and the principles enunciated in Section 41 of the CrPc relating to the arrest of a person had not been followed by Madhya Pradesh police.
The counsel also urged the bench to grant protection to the comedian as a local court in Uttar Pradesh had issued a production warrant for his appearance.

“All right,” Justice Nariman said while staying the production warrant and issuing notices to the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh governments, besides the complainants.

“…The learned counsel has pointed out to us that quite apart from the fact that the allegations made in the FIR are vague (and) that the procedure contained in Section 41 CrPC as adumbrated by our (2014) judgment…. has not been followed before arresting the petitioner,” the court said.