Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) accused of making communal remarks during a televised discussion. The court, presided over by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, found that the petitioner had violated bail conditions imposed in a previous case and held that granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would send a wrong message to society.

The case stems from remarks made by the petitioner during a discussion on Janam TV, which led to the registration of Crime No. 49/2025 at Erattupettah Police Station, Kottayam. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s statements were communal in nature and violated Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (KP Act).

The petitioner, a senior politician and former MLA from Poonjar Constituency, was participating in a televised discussion when he allegedly made statements targeting a religious community. The complainant, the second respondent in the case, filed a complaint leading to the registration of the FIR. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, citing his age and political background.

His counsel, Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu, argued that the petitioner’s remarks were made in the heat of the moment during a live debate, provoked by a co-panelist. The defense further contended that the petitioner issued a public apology immediately after the discussion via a Facebook post, indicating remorse. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2014) 8 SCC 273], the defense asserted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the maximum punishment under the alleged offences was three years of imprisonment or a fine.

The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan and Advocate S. Rajeev for the complainant, opposed the bail application. They argued that the petitioner had a history of similar offences, citing multiple prior cases registered against him for alleged hate speech. The prosecution highlighted that the petitioner had been granted bail in previous cases with conditions prohibiting him from making communal statements, yet he continued to do so.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that the petitioner was facing multiple cases for making provocative speeches, including Crime No. 677/2022 of Fort Police Station and Crime No. 487/2022 of Palarivattom Police Station. The court examined the petitioner’s past bail orders, particularly the conditions imposed in B.A. Nos. 4094/2022 and 3971/2022, where the petitioner was explicitly directed "not to make any speech or statement which would tend to result in the commission of offences under Sections 153A or 295A of the Indian Penal Code."

The court observed that despite these conditions, the petitioner had once again made statements that prima facie fell under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the BNS. The judgment noted, "It cannot be said that the offences under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the BNS are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Rejecting the defense’s argument that the petitioner’s remarks were a slip of the tongue, the court remarked, "If a politician with 30 years of experience as an MLA can be provoked easily like this, he does not deserve to continue as a political leader." The court also dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent apology as irrelevant to the legal proceedings, stating, "After making abusive statements which may result in communal disharmony, the apology given by the petitioner cannot be accepted."

The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Arnesh Kumar and Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. [(2022) 17 SCC 391], emphasizing that even if custodial interrogation is not necessary, anticipatory bail should not be granted where there is a prima facie case against the accused. The judgment stated, "If this Court grants bail in these types of cases, that will give a wrong message to society. The people may think that even if bail conditions are violated, they will get anticipatory bail from the court of law."

The court also pointed out concerns regarding the legal framework governing hate speech, stating that the current penalties under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the BNS—maximum imprisonment of three years or a fine—might not be adequate to deter repeat offenders. The judgment noted, "These tendencies should be nipped in the bud. If anybody violates the same, can an offender escape from the offence even by paying a fine alone, is a matter to be considered by the Parliament and the Law Commission."

Accordingly, the Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, ruling that the petitioner had violated his previous bail conditions and that granting relief in such cases would undermine the rule of law.

Case Title: P.C. George v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: B.A. No. 1874 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan

[Read/Download order]