Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Making Casteist Remarks Against Ex-President Ram Nath Kovind On FB

In its order, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan emphasised the importance of restraint and respect when discussing individuals holding high constitutional positions, particularly on social media.

The Court added that while people are entitled to their opinions— positive or negative— and to like or dislike a particular person, such opinions should not be derogatory or abusive.

“It is to be recalled that restraint with regard to making comments on any social media platform is desired to be observed by every person and those who are sitting on the highest constitutional posts are to be respected by one and all and must be paid due regard and honour. It has to be understood that a person may have like or dislike against any person or authority but it does not mean that he may start posting derogatory and abusive language for the top Constitutional Authority.”

Accused-Tiwari was booked under Sections 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 3(2)Va S.C./S.T. Act and Section 67 I.T. Act on the allegations of using derogatory language, casteist slurs against Former president Kovind on the Facebook page of a local news channel, namely, 'Sohawal Samachar, Faizabad'.

He was arrested in August this year and was denied bail by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad.

Seeking bail from the High Court, the accused's counsel contended before the single judge that apart from the oral allegations, no material/evidence is available against the appellant.

It was further submitted that the investigating officer had not identified the IP Address of the device from which the alleged obscene/derogatory comments are shown to have been uploaded. It was added thatAt this stage, it could not be said that the appellant stated or uploaded the derogatory comments regarding the Constitutional Authority.

It was further submitted that the informant of this case did not have any locus to lodge the FIR and that, apart from the oral evidence and a screenshot of the Facebook group, which is not admissible in evidence, no other material/evidence is available against the appellant.

On the other hand, the AGA, appearing for the state, argued against grant of bail to the accused.

Against this backdrop, the bench noted that the charge sheet filed by the IO revealed that the appellant made the alleged comments not with an intention to derogate any Constitutional Authority but in support of a political party.

The Court further noted that the appellant-accused has been languishing in jail in this case since 02.08.2024 and does not have any previous criminal record to his credit and that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

“The guilt of the accused will be proved during the course of trial and keeping in view the fact that nothing has been placed before this Court which may suggest that the IP Address of the device, from which the alleged obscene/derogatory comments have been posted, has been identified and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and reasons narrated herein before, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant…,” the Court remarked as it noted that the special/trial court committed an illegality while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant.

In view of this, the Court granted him bail while emphasising the importance of restraint and respect when discussing individuals holding high constitutional positions, particularly on social media.

Counsel for Appellant: Awdhesh Kumar Mishra, Mahraz

Case title - Sandeep Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 586

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 586

Click here ToRead/Download Order