Allahabad High Court Grants Interim Relief To Man Who Allegedly Called PM Modi 'A Virus Who Requires An Urgent Antidote'
The Allahabad High Court recently granted interim to one Mohd. Farhan who has been accused of posting a video on social media wherein he called the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi ‘a virus who requires an urgent antidote’. The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla ordered thus while dealing with a writ plea filed by the accused-petitioner...
The Allahabad High Court recently granted interim to one Mohd. Farhan who has been accused of posting a video on social media wherein he called the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi ‘a virus who requires an urgent antidote’.
The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla ordered thus while dealing with a writ plea filed by the accused-petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against him under Section 504 IPC & Section 66 of the IT Act.
Prima facie opining that the words attributed to the petitioner-accused do not fall within the purview of Section 504 IPC, the Court granted interim protection from arrest to him till the next listing or till submission of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, whichever is earlier.
Essentially, the allegations in the FIR, a copy of which has been accessed by LiveLaw, were to the effect that the accused, in his videos, made indecent comments on the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, stating that he is a virus of this country, and it very important to make an antidote against him in time, otherwise, this virus will eat up the entire country.
Before the HC, his counsel, Aishwarya Pratap Singh, argued that the words, in any case, cannot be said to be derogatory or indecent or to be such, which would fall within the purview of Section 504 IPC.
It was argued that this provision gets attracted when any person intentionally insults another intending or knowing that the insult is likely to cause the person insulted to break the public peace or to commit an offence.
Against this backdrop, it was submitted that the comment in any case was a political comment and was not made to provoke the Prime Minister to break the public peace or to comment an offence.
On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, appearing for the state submitted that the petitioner has not denied the allegations in the FIR that he is the spokesman of a political party and was making a political statement, which has been made viral.
It was next been submitted that the words attributed to the petitioner stand admitted in the writ petition and since, a cognizable offence is, therefore, disclosed and the petition merits dismissal.
However, noting that the words attributed to the petitioner do not fall within the purview of Section 504 IPC, the Court said that the matter requires consideration and extended protection to the accused.
With this, the Court gave the liberty to the counsel for the respondents to file a counter affidavit within three weeks and two weeks thereafter to the Petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit.
Case title – Mohd. Farhan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5740 of 2023]