Not every post that hurts sentiments is crime: Allahabad High Court grants pre-arrest bail over ‘insult’ to PM, CM

Justice Manish Mathur granted interim protection to the applicant, subject to certain conditions.

“Every social media post which may incite the passions of a particular community would not come within purview of Sections 299, 352 BNS read with Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 until and unless it is established that such posts were deliberate and intentional with a view to provoke the members of a particular community,” the Allahabad High Court said in its order dated April 16.

Arguments

The counsel for the accused argued that he was falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that whether the posts were uploaded by him or under his name still needs to be established since the investigation was ongoing.

It was further submitted before the Allahabad High Court that the accused had agreed to cooperate with the investigation.

The counsel contended that the informant is a coordinator of a particular political party and the entire First Information Report (FIR) was malicious and meant merely to further his own objectives.

He placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and argued that unless it can be shown that the posts were malicious or deliberate, the aforesaid sections would not be made out and that mere uploading of posts carelessly would not implicate the applicant with regard to sections imputed.

Opposing the plea, the state argued that the posts were attributable to the applicant based on technical evidence and reflected a deliberate attempt to insult a particular community and public figures.

Court’s directions: Interim protection

• The Allahabad High Court noted that the investigation was ongoing, and there was nothing adverse regarding the applicant’s cooperation.
• On the judgment relied upon by the applicant, it noted that the Supreme Court held that insults to a particular religion offered unwittingly or carelessly without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the scope of the section, and the provisions punish only aggravated forms of insult to religion where there is malicious intention.
• The Allahabad High Court, therefore, granted interim protection to the applicant, citing the Supreme Court’s view in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
• It granted protection subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, non-tampering of evidence, and appearance before the trial court.