MOHAMMED ZUBAIR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena, Sri A.K. Sand, learned Government Advocate. Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant was heard along with Sri Adhitya Srinivasan who appeared through Video Conference.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the First Information Report dtd. 7/10/2024 giving rise to Case Crime No.992 of 2024 against the petitioner-Mohd. Zubair lodged under Sec. 196, 228, 299, 356(3), 351(2) and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act be quashed.

(3.) The brief facts leading to the lodging of the FIR are that on 3/10/2024, the petitioner had tweeted certain messages at 9.30 pm. Thereafter on 4/10/2024 he had again tweeted at 11 hours and 08 minutes and thereafter on 5/10/2024 he had again done so at 12.38 PM. Thereafter and as a result of the tweets, specifically the one that was made on 3/10/2024, in the night of 4/10/2024 at Dasna Devi Temple, certain persons attacked a temple. The FIR was lodged on 7/10/2024 at 2.19 PM. The FIR alleged that the cofounder of ALT News Mohd. Zubair on 3/10/2024 at 9.30 PM had tweeted and had also uploaded a video of Yati Narsinghanand Giri and because of the tweet, certain persons had got provoked. It has been stated in the FIR that apart from the above tweets, certain old incidents were also mentioned therein. It was stated in the FIR that the Yati Narsinghanand Giri was also alleged by the accused of insulting some political leaders. It had been stated that in that list, the name of Dr. Udita Tyagi (first informant) had been included. The first informant has thereafter stated that after those tweets, she was receiving life threatening messages about which she had also reported earlier. It has thereafter been stated that Mohd. Zubair did not stop after the tweeting of messages on 4/10/2024. He thereafter again tweeted on 5/10/2024 at 11.08 AM. And then again he tweeted on that very date i.e. on 5/10/2024 at 12.38 PM. In the FIR, it has been stated that the posts of the accused were a complete thread of events which also showed the old speeches of Yati Narsinghanand Giri. Along with the FIR, the link of the posts was also attached and a written request was made to look into those links and to see the comments which were made by the general public who were being provoked. Thereafter in the FIR it had been mentioned that on 4/10/2024, certain persons had attacked the temple. It has been stated that earlier also the petitioner had tweeted about one Nupur Sharma and had tried to provoke the public at large and because of that provocation eight people had lost their lives. In the FIR it had been stated that on 4/10/2024, Yati Narsinghanand Giri and the first informant herself were present in the temple but they had a narrow escape. In the end, it was stated that the petitioner was provoking a certain group of people against a particular community.