The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed Mohammed Bilal’s plea seeking cancelling of an FIR filed under Section 153A IPC against him for uploading anti-Hindu content on his Instagram account. Bilal stated that the post that was posted from his Instagram account abusing Lord Rama and the Hindu religion was not posted by him but by someone else who hacked his account.
The Court dismissed the plea. The Court said, the man’s defence that the post was uploaded by hacking his account could not be considered at this stage. According to the media reports, Section 153A of the IPC prohibits encouraging animosity between various groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, domicile, language, and other factors, as well as engaging in acts that are detrimental to the maintenance of harmony.
A single-judge panel of Justice GS Ahluwalia said, ‘The petitioner has admitted that an offensive post was uploaded on his Instagram account. Now, the only question for consideration is whether it was a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner or somebody else who uploaded the said post by hacking his Instagram account. It is a defense of the petitioner, which cannot be considered at this stage’.
As per the original complaint document in the case, the case against the accused identified as Mohammed Bilal was filed by complainant Sujan. The complainant in the case mentioned that one of the friends of Sujan showed him an Instagram post that was posted by Bilal. The post used abusive words for Lord Ram and Hindu culture. Later Sujan and his friend confronted Bilal over the post. However, Bilal instead of explaining the entire situation, abused the complainant and his friend.
The court said that after reviewing the FIR, it became obvious that the complainant had asked the petitioner why the offensive post had been uploaded on his Instagram account. ‘Instead of explaining that the above mentioned post was uploaded by someone else by hacking his account, the petitioner started abusing and humiliating the complainant and also hurt his religious feelings, said the judgment. It further added that the petitioner’s behavior shows that his defense was not appropriate.
The court said, ‘This conduct of the petitioner indicates that the defense of uploading the offensive post on his Instagram account by somebody else is incorrect. Be that whatever it may be. Since uploading of an offensive post on his Instagram account has been admitted by the petitioner himself, therefore, he had no right to react in a manner in which it was done with the complainant. Whether allegations made in the FIR are correct or not cannot be considered at this stage’. The High Court said, ‘The accused’s defense cannot be taken into account. Considering the fact that the FIR in question discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, no case is made out warranting interference’,
Comments