Allahabad High Court Refused Relief To Man Accused Of Making Hate Speech Against CM Yogi Adityanath, Dhirendra Shastri

The Allahabad High Court in the case Deepak vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Others observed and has refused to quash an FIR lodged against a Bhim Army leader who has been accused for making of hate speech which being against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath and Bageshwar Baba, Dhirendra Shastri.
The bench comprising of Justice Ramesh Sinha (who is now serving as the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court) and the Justice Narendra Kumar Johari in the case observed and has also declined to stay the arrest of the petitioner Deepak as it noted that prima facie, the said case was being made out against him.
In the present case, the court was dealing with the writ petition being filed by accused Deepak who had moved the Court wherein seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him under Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR. In the case, the said FIR was being lodged by one Vijay Kumar Gautam wherein it is alleged that the petitioner made hate speech on Facebook against the abovenamed persons.
It has also been argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that he had been falsely implicated in the case with malafide intention and that no offence was being made out against him.
The AGA, appearing for the State argued before the court that the impugned FIR discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, the court dismissed the writ petition filed.
The court observed after hearing both the counsels that it being apparent that the petitioner had made a derogatory and disrespectful comment against Chief Minister Adityanath as well as Bageshwar Baba Dhirendra Shastri.
Adding to it, the court stated that the allegations made in the F.I.R. as a subject matter of investigation and at this stage it cannot be said that no offence, whatsoever is being made out against the petitioner.
It has also been noted by the court that in view of the ratio which is laid down by the Apex Court in the case Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and on perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record, the case is being made out against the petitioner.
Further, it has also been noted by the court that the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners relate to disputed questions of facts, the court cannot adjudicate upon in the jurisdiction as stated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.