The MP High Court has denied bail for Congress politician Raja Pateria, who was detained after making the comment “murder Modi.”

The bail application of Congress politician and former state minister Raja Pateria, who was detained last month for his controversial “be ready to assassinate Modi to safeguard the Constitution” remark regarding the prime minister, was denied by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

In an order issued on Wednesday, Justice Sanjay Dwivedi stated there was no need for the applicant, a prominent figure, to use such harsh words about the country’s prime minister.
“It is not anticipated from a public leader to use vulgar language denigrating the image of a high-ranking official, such as the President or Prime Minister, and causing alarm in society,” the court ruled in dismissing Pateria’s bail request.

Pateria was apprehended on December 13, 2022, from his home in Hata town, Damoh district, and is currently being held in judicial custody.

After a court in Pawai, Panna district, declined to give him bail, his lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court.

Pateria could be heard addressing Congress workers during a gathering in Pawai in a video that leaked on social media, “Be ready to assassinate Modi. Kill in the sense of defeat…… Modi will call an end to the elections. Modi will create divisions based on religion, caste, and language. Dalits, tribals, and minorities face a bleak future. If you want to save the Constitution, you must be willing to murder Modi. Kill with the intention of beating him.” Pateria was charged with various Indian Penal Code Sections, including 451 (house-trespass), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505 (statements conducting public mischief), 506 (criminal intimidation), 115 (abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life if offence not committed), and 117 (criminal intimidation) (abetting commission of offence by the public).

The FIR added the charge of house trespassing because the gathering of Congress workers was allegedly held without permission at the Pawai PWD guest house.

Pateria’s words were deemed highly unacceptable by the state legislature. The prosecution argued in the high court that the applicant made a “address explicitly using filthy and menacing language plotting to assassinate the prime minister of the country and further instigating the persons of minorities in the wake of their religion, caste, and language.” The prosecution opposed the bail plea and requested that it be dismissed, claiming that it is exceedingly unusual for a political leader to “openly trash” the image of a rival leader, let alone the prime minister of India.

The prosecution claimed that there are statements on record from various eyewitnesses that crystallise the applicant’s unruly behaviour, as well as video clips that clearly depict the applicant as eloquently making a speech using words to provoke other minorities, castigating the image, and conspiring to murder the prime minister.

Justice Dwivedi stated that he had given careful regard to the representations made on behalf of opposing parties by reviewing the overall facts and circumstances, reading an integral portion of the case diary, and seeing a movie on a CD.

However, the sanctity of video-clipping cannot be tested at this time, and treating it as genuine would not be appropriate for consideration at the bail stage, according to the court.

Clearly, there was no reason for the petitioner, a public figure, to use such harsh words against the Prime Minister of the country who was assisting the mob in committing a crime. According to the HC’s directive, the public leader should be cautious about employing terms during their speech that may distract the minds of his followers/spectators.

“It has become a vogue for some public leaders to seek the popularity of their followers without regard for the outcome of deliverance. This conduct not only diminishes the image of public officials in society, but it is also contributing to an increase in political criminality,” it stated.

“It is not expected of a public leader to use vulgar language degrading the image of a high-ranking official, such as the President or Prime Minister, and causing alarm in society,” the court stated.

Thus, based on the length of incarceration and the manner in which the offence was committed, the applicant cannot be granted bail because it would send the wrong message to society, the HC stated in dismissing Pateria’s motion.