(1) Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racials, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or
(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to
be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious
worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Tag: IPC 153A – Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion race place of birth residence language etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju Vs State of AP and Ors
On his birthday 14 May 2021, Member of Parliament Sri Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju was arrested from his home at Hyderabad by the AP CID Police and brought to CID office at Guntur. On the intervening night between 14th and 15th May 2021, he was subjected to the 3rd degree police torcher by the AP CID Police on the instruction of their Higher up who may be boot-licking their political masters. Then a slew of legal actions were put to motion…
On 19 May 2021,
The Police officials who tried to act smart and favor their pay-master Chief Minister of AP by not implementing the Order of High Court, got served with Contempt of Court notices. The High Court also showcased the shenanigans of the Superintendent of the Government General Hospital, Guntur who is also the wife of the head of the ruling party’s IT Cell also, who did not finish the examination of accused in time and made the High Court wait until 6PM, finally issuing a notice why action should not be taken under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act.
The AAG got rap on his butt from Justice Lalitha Kanneganti by saying that he could be referred to Bar Council for taking appropriate action, which may involve immediate suspension from Bar Association which will render him a non-advocate during suspension period and eventually getting kicked out of the Legal profession itself, all for the chamchagiri he intended to do to the Chief Minister of AP.
Hilarious stuff!!
On 21 May 2021,
Supreme Court granted bail with usual conditions.
In our view, considering the injuries as reported by the Medical Board of the Army Hospital, we can prima facie form an opinion that the appellant may have been ill-treated while in police custody. Further, we are of the opinion that the charges against the appellant are not such in which custodial interrogation would be required as all the statements made by the appellant are on record and the FIR has been lodged only after a detailed enquiry by the State CID. Considering the totality of the circumstances and also the health position of the appellant, specially that the appellant has undergone heart bypass surgery in December 2020, which is not denied by the respondent and has also been noted in the report of the Medical Board of the Army Hospital, we deem it just and proper that the appellant be enlarged on bail
On 17 Jun 2021,
On the request of the petitioner’s advocate, AP High Court disposed of this petition as no further action is required.
