Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh rejected a bail application, holding that the nature of the contents allegedly shared by the applicant, the gravity of the offence, and the potential impact on societal harmony provided no grounds for release on bail. The court concluded that there was sufficient material on record to connect the applicant to objectionable content and that granting bail would send a wrong signal to the public. The application was dismissed with the observation that the applicant was "not entitled for any sympathy in justice delivery system" in light of the material before the court.

The case arose from an FIR lodged on 14 May 2025 by Sub-Inspector Vishal Chaudhary of Police Station Salempur, District Bulandshahar. The complaint stated that through a social media post, it was discovered that a Facebook account under the name "Tahir Mewati" was circulating objectionable videos of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi. The account allegedly posted Pakistan-supported videos and objectionable content, potentially disrupting social harmony and public order.

Also Read: "No Bail Orders Based on Financial Undertakings, Litigants Taking Courts for a Ride Must End": Supreme Court Cancels Bail, Orders Pan-India Compliance with Merits-Only Evaluation

The FIR was registered under Sections 152, 352, 197(1)(c), and 353(1)(C) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, the person operating the account was identified as Tahir, son of Ikramuddin, a resident of Parigram Rasidpur in District Bulandshahar.

The applicant contended through counsel that a fake Facebook ID had been created by someone else with the intention of tarnishing his image. He asserted that he neither posted anything on social media nor made any videos viral against the Prime Minister. He maintained that he had no criminal history and had been in custody since 14 May 2025, seeking bail on the assurance that he would not misuse it.

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the bail. The State pointed out discrepancies in the applicant's stand before the Sessions Court and the High Court. Before the Sessions Court, the applicant reportedly admitted that certain memes were uploaded on his account but denied sharing any material likely to disturb public peace. Before the High Court, however, the applicant claimed he had not posted anything at all. The State submitted that objectionable and inflammatory videos posted were intended to glorify violent extremism, promote anti-national sentiments, and disturb communal harmony.

The State also referred to corroborative digital evidence, including the recovery of the mobile phone allegedly used to operate the account, IP address logs traced to the applicant's residence, account recovery email and phone number linked to the applicant, and metadata indicating login activity coinciding with his location. It was argued that granting bail could encourage similar unlawful activities.

The court noted that screenshots from the applicant's Facebook account contained objectionable captions and visuals, including depictions of the Prime Minister in compromising and derogatory positions with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, accompanied by captions like "Modi Maafi Maangta Hai" and Urdu texts allegedly glorifying Pakistan.

The court recorded: "The said contents appears to be aimed at ridiculing the Indian leadership and promoting a narrative contrary to the interest of national sovereignty, unity and integrity." It further stated: "Said material shared by the applicant through his Facebook account is provocative, objectionable and capable of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing public peace and order." The court added that the "themes and language used in the post indicate inclination towards glorification of anti-national ideology, which cannot be ignored."

The court referred to its earlier decision in Niyaz Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. (2022 SCC OnLine All 105), stating: "It is beyond the shadow of doubt that social media is a global platform for exchange of thoughts, opinions and ideas... The right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties." It further observed: "Such persons who are deliberately involved in such acts... are hazardous to the civilized society and they are not entitled for any sympathy in justice delivery system."

The bench reiterated that "now it is high time to evolve some more and full proof screening mechanism to regulate, check and control the unhealthy posts on social media" and directed that such conduct could not be ignored in light of its impact on reputation, public order, and societal harmony.

Also Read: DM Can Re-Execute Possession Orders Under SARFAESI Act | MP High Court Says Borrower’s Illegal Re-Entry Can’t Defeat Secured Creditor’s Rights

Based on the findings, the court held that no grounds existed to grant bail. It stated:               " considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, nature of the contents allegedly shared by the applicant, gravity of offence and their potential impact on societal harmony, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail."

The application was rejected with the clear stipulation that: "The observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Applicant: Rajesh Chandra Jaiswal, Sachchida Nand Ojha, Vikas Srivastava

For the Respondents: Government Advocate

Case Title: Tahir Mewati v. State of U.P.

Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:124956

Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25687 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh