Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Mohammed Zubair - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 21016 of 2024
Decided On : 22-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir lodged against petitioner for tweets leading to violence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the applicability of section 152 bns. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. discussion on intent and mens rea in relation to section 152 bns. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. freedom of speech under article 19(1)(a) and its limitations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. state's arguments on the impact of petitioner's tweets. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. court's observations on the need for investigation and public order. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 7. court's decision to protect petitioner from arrest during investigation. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
Siddhartha Varma, J.
1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena, Sri A.K. Sand, learned Government Advocate. Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant was heard along with Sri Adhitya Srinivasan who appeared through Video Conference.
2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the First Information Report dated 7.10.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No.992 of 2024 against the petitioner-Mohd. Zubair lodged under sections 196, 228, 299, 356(3), 351(2) and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under section 66 of the Information Technology Act be quashed.
3. The brief facts leading to the lodging of the FIR are that on 3.10.2024, the petitioner had tweeted certain messages at 9.30 pm. Thereafter on 4.10.2024 he had again tweeted at 11 hours and 08 minutes and thereafter on 5.10.2024 he had again done so at 12.38 PM. Thereafter and as a result of the tweets, specifically the one that was made on 3.10.2024, in the night of 4.10.2024 at Dasna Devi Temple, certain persons attacked a temple. The FIR was lodged on 7.10.2024 at 2.19 PM. The FIR alleged that the co- founder of ALT News Mohd. Zubair on 3.10.2024 at 9.30 PM had tweeted and had also uploaded a video of Yati Narsinghanand Giri and because of the tweet, certain persons had got provoked. It has been stated in the FIR that apart from the above tweets, certain old incidents were also mentioned therein. It was stated in the FIR that the Yati Narsinghanand Giri was also alleged by the accused of insulting some political leaders. It had been stated that in that list, the name of Dr. Udita Tyagi (first informant) had been included. The first informant has thereafter stated that after those tweets, she was receiving life threatening messages about which she had also reported earlier. It has thereafter been stated that Mohd. Zubair did not stop after the tweeting of messages on 4.10.2024. He thereafter again tweeted on 5.10.2024 at 11.08 AM. And then again he tweeted on that very date i.e. on 5.10.2024 at 12.38 PM. In the FIR, it has been stated that the posts of the accused were a complete thread of events which also showed the old speeches of Yati Narsinghanand Giri. Along with the FIR, the link of the posts was also attached and a written request was made to look into those links and to see the comments which were made by the general public who were being provoked. Thereafter in the FIR it had been mentioned that on 4.10.2024, certain persons had attacked the temple. It has been stated that earlier also the petitioner had tweeted about one Nupur Sharma and had tried to provoke the public at large and because of that provocation eight people had lost their lives. In the FIR it had been stated that on 4.10.2024, Yati Narsinghanand Giri and the first informant herself were present in the temple but they had a narrow escape. In the end, it was stated that the petitioner was provoking a certain group of people against a particular community.
4. Initially the FIR was lodged under section 196, 228, 299, 356(3) and 351(2) of the BNS but subsequently after some investigation,
The court held that the intent behind tweets must be assessed carefully, and freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and national integrity.
(1) Existence of power of arrest must be distinguished from exercise of power of arrest – Exercise of power of arrest must be pursued sparingly.(2) Courts while imposing bail conditions must balance ....
Right to express one’s views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy. Merely because the point of view of Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expre....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proximate and direct nexus between expression and public disorder, and the need for evidence to establish mens rea in cases involving incitement of violence.
Posting of offensive Tweet – Freedom of speech encompasses right to dissent, critique and express political discontent and criminal prosecution in matters of expression must be reserved only for case....
The court ruled it inappropriate to quash a FIR at the investigative stage unless a clear case for quashing is established, emphasizing police prerogative in investigating alleged offences.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
