The lower court’s order on April 30, 2010, followed a complaint in 2008 filed by a man alleging that the controversial Islamic preacher had hurt the religious sentiments of a particular community, the Press Trust of India reported.
Justice Amar Singh Chauhan had reserved judgment on March 28, 2018, on the petition filed by Naik, who is president of the Islamic Research Foundation.
According to the Hindustan Times, Mudassir Ullah Khan filed a complaint on Jan 9, 2008, before the chief judicial magistrate in Jhansi alleging that Naik had hurt the religious sentiments of “a particular community” in a television programme telecast on Jan 21, 2006.
Khan said Naik had also published and distributed a pamphlet to incite hatred and ill will among different communities.
The Hindustan Times reported that the judicial magistrate had summoned Naik before the court on April 30, 2010, for waging war against the state and for charges under other sections of the Indian Penal Code, and issued a non-bailable warrant against him.
The report said a person could be punished with death or life imprisonment for waging war against the government of India or attempting to wage such war or abetting it.
Naik’s plea, the Hindustan Times reported, was that he was president of an organisation that clarified Islamic viewpoints and cleared misconceptions about Islam. He said the allegations against him were baseless.
The High Court on June 6, 2011, directed that until the next date of mention, no coercive action should be taken against Naik following the April 30, 2010 order by the magistrate.
On Monday, the Bombay High Court had refused to restore Naik’s passport, saying no relief could be granted to a proclaimed offender who had fled India.
The report added that the court had adjourned the petition by two weeks on his lawyer’s request.
According to Hindustan Times, Naik landed in trouble following reports that terrorists who had attacked the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka, Bangladesh, killing 20 foreigners on July 1, 2016, had been influenced by him. Naik has denied this, claiming he had never incited communal disharmony.