Rajasthan HC cites Gandhi, denies bail to 5 in Kanhaiya Lal case: ‘Terrorism a weapon of the weak’

The high court, however, clarified that its observations are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail and that the trial court “shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove”. (AI-enhanced image)

The Rajasthan High Court on Saturday denied bail to five accused in Udaipur’s Kanhaiya Lal Teli murder case, invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s words that “terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong, but of the weak”.

A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain denied bail applications of Wasim Ali, 34, Muslim Khan, 43, Mohsin Khan, 27, Mohammad Mohsin, 34, and Asif Hussain, 25, saying that “we find that the gravity of the offence, the specific roles attributed to the appellants in the larger criminal conspiracy, and the heinous nature of the terrorist act disentitle the accused-appellants to the benefits of bail”.

On June 28, 2022, two people — Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Ghouse Mohammad — had allegedly posed as customers and hacked to death Kanhaiya Lal Teli at his shop in Udaipur over a post shared by him on social media in support of Nupur Sharma, a BJP spokesperson who was suspended for her objectionable remarks about the Prophet during a live television debate.

The Bench also quoted a poem by Ramdhari Singh Dinkar on tolerance and, in prefatory remarks, said: “The seat of a judge is surrounded by an invisible, yet crushing weight, the weight to protect the rights of the citizens and people of this country which are enshrined under the Constitution of India”.

“The paradigm of bail shifts entirely when the crime in question is not aimed at an individual, but at the very soul of the nation,” the Bench said, adding: “Terrorism is not merely an assault on a physical body; it is a calculated, theatrical assault on the psychological sovereignty of the country. Its ultimate objective is not just to commit an offence, but the assassination of peace. It seeks to replace the ‘Rule of Law’ with the ‘Rule of Fear’”.

The NIA had filed a charge sheet, and the trial court framed charges against the five accused in 2024. They have been in judicial custody since their arrest in the days and weeks following the murder. They had filed bail applications before a Special Court, which had rejected their pleas in October and November 2024.

Representing the accused, Syed Saadat Ali and others primarily contended that “there is no cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that the accused were present in or around the vicinity of the deceased’s shop” during the relevant period leading up to the incident, specifically between June 10 and June 28, 2022.

Story continues below this ad

Next, they said that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused “had sent any message, voice note, or text on any WhatsApp group that could be construed as hurting the religious faith of any community or promoting enmity”.

They also relied on bail granted to two other accused, Farhad Mohammed and Mohammed Javed, by the trial court and by the High Court “on the exact same set of charges as framed against the present accused-appellants”.

They also said that the accused have been in custody for over four and a half years and that “the trial will take its own considerable time… although the charge-sheet was filed on 22.08.2022 and charges were framed in early 2024, the trial is far from conclusion”.

Senior counsel Raja Thakare, appearing on behalf of the National Investigation Agency, said that the five accused “played an active, indispensable, and integral role in the commission of the alleged crime.”

Story continues below this ad

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, Thakare and others said that the court is “not required to conduct a mini-trial or weigh the evidence meticulously at the bail stage. The Court must look at the material provided by the investigative agency at its face value, and if it discloses reasonable grounds for believing the accusation to be prima facie true, bail must be rejected”.

The high court said that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act places a statutory embargo on the grant of bail if the court, on a perusal of the charge-sheet, “is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”

It said that the NIA has completed a detailed and comprehensive investigation, filed the charge-sheet, and the trial court has already framed charges against the accused: “This establishes that upon a prima facie evaluation, there exists sufficient material to proceed against the appellants, and therefore, the foundational test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court… is squarely met at this stage.”

The high court, however, clarified that its observations are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail and that the trial court “shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove”.

© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd

Hamza Khan is a seasoned Correspondent for The Indian Express, specifically reporting from the diverse and politically dynamic state of Rajasthan. Based in Jaipur, he provides high-authority coverage on the state's governance, legal landscape, and social issues, directly supporting the "Journalism of Courage" ethos of the publication. Expertise Politics & Governance: Comprehensive tracking of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, including policy changes (e.g., the Right to Health Bill and Anti-Mob Lynching Bills), bypoll dynamics, and the shifting power structures between the BJP and Congress. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram