Allahabad High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail in Social Media Case Involving Political Comments

Background of the Case

The Allahabad High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to an individual accused of making derogatory social media posts against specific religious sentiments, the Prime Minister of India, and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The decision was made by Justice Manish Mathur, who stated that not every socially provocative post constitutes a criminal offense unless there is clear evidence of intent to provoke a specific community.

This ruling involved a plea connected to allegations under Indian law, specifically sections 299 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Justice Mathur’s decision highlighted the need to demonstrate that the social media postings were made with the intention to provoke or outrage religious feelings.

Arguments Presented

The defense counsel asserted that the accused was falsely implicated in the case, emphasizing that it remains unclear whether the contentious posts were actually made by him or under his name as the investigation is ongoing. Furthermore, the counsel noted the accused’s willingness to cooperate with law enforcement, which was a point raised in court.

It was also argued that the individual filing the complaint was affiliated with a particular political party and that the resulting First Information Report (FIR) was malicious, aimed at furthering personal political objectives. Citing a precedent from the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, the defense maintained that without evidence of deliberate malice, the charges under the relevant sections of the law could not be substantiated.

State’s Stance

The state opposed the anticipatory bail plea by asserting that the posts were indeed attributable to the accused based on technical analysis. They contended that the posts represented a calculated attempt to insult a specific community and public figures. This counterargument formed a significant part of the state’s rationale for opposing the accused’s request for bail.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Allahabad High Court noted that the investigation was still underway and acknowledged that there had been no adverse findings regarding the accused’s cooperation with law enforcement authorities. Referencing the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the defense, the High Court pointed out that not all acts that may offend a specific community’s religious sentiments fall under the scope of criminal liability, particularly if there is no malicious intent.