A Delhi court has granted bail to Delhi University professor Ratan Lal who was arrested over a derogatory social media post after a Shivling was found in the disputed Gyanvapi complex.
In his bail plea, the Delhi Professor touted himself as a follower of Hindu religion. ”It is further argued that the accused is a person of repute who is himself a follower of a Hindu religion and does not seek to create animosity between religious groups,” the bail plea read.
DU professor Ratan Lal, in his bail plea, told the court he is a follower of Hindu religion pic.twitter.com/5AfvJEMVZQ
— Swati Goel Sharma (@swati_gs) May 21, 2022
The court ruled that the professor can walk out on bail after furnishing a bond of Rs 50,000.
On Saturday, May 21, Lal was produced in Tis Hazari court before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Siddhartha Malik. Lal had applied to the Delhi High Court for bail and protection. The court has also ordered Ratan Lal to desist from making any social media posts or interviews about the Shivling.
Meanwhile, the Delhi Police has also filed an application for Ratan Lal’s judicial custody. The police claimed that the case is important since social media posts have a large impact on society.
Making a statement on the issue, Ratan Lal’s lawyer said, “We are moving his bail plea. He is not a criminal and will not run away. You [Police] did not serve any notice to him or give him a chance to reply to the complaint. The offences are bailable.”
Ratan Lal, a Delhi University professor, was arrested on Friday night for making derogatory remarks about the Shivling discovered within Varanasi’s disputed Gyanvapi Mosque, which was erected on the remnants of a temple.
Lal, an assistant professor at Hindu College, was initially called for interrogation. He was arrested based on a complaint registered by Supreme Court advocate Vineet Jindal, who had accused Lal of offending religious sensitivities.
Ratan Lal was arrested by the Cyber Police Station, North under IPC sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony) and 295A (deliberate act to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion).
