'Deriding Elected Govt': Uttarakhand HC Denies Relief To Man Accused Of Instigating 'Mob Lynching' Attempt Via FB Live

A bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay dismissed the writ petition file y accused (Madan Mohan Joshi) as it took serious exception to his alleged social media posts that spoke of starting a 'Kranti' (revolution) across the country.

"In other words, he is deriding popular & democratically elected governments and the same is condemnable. In that view, the petition does not merit consideration and is, accordingly, rejected", the bench remarked as it refused him the relief.

Case in brief

The incident is of Ramnagar, District Nainital, where a mob intercepted a vehicle allegedly transporting meat. A call was made on Emergency No. 112 regarding activists assaulting a driver. The police rushed to the spot and saved the driver from being lynched. The documents in the possession of the victim certified that the meat was actually buffalo meat.

In fact, the police alleged that the petitioner (Joshi), now booked under Sections 109 (Attempt to murder) and 190 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) BNS. was instrumental in instigating the mob" through 'false' and 'unverified' claims that the meat was cow meat and that a community was indulging in cow slaughter.

The allegations also add that he went live with his social media Facebook handle, which led to the gathering of a huge mob.

It has been specifically alleged that the police suspect him to be responsible for instigating the mob and doing live telecast near mob lynching and that his videos led to a situation where huge numbers from both communities arrived at the police station and that 16 accused have been identified, 13 have been arrested and 3 are evading arrest including the petitioner.

On the other hand, Joshi's counsel argued that his client was actually a "good Samaritan" and an "animal lover" who rushed to the spot to save the victim. He contended that the video would demonstrate Joshi was requesting the mob and trying to placate the angry mob not to assault the driver.

The State, on the other hand, opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioner had been successfully evading and avoiding the police and despite multiple raids and the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) by the jurisdictional Magistrate, Joshi failed to cooperate in the probe.

Consequently, proceedings under Section 84 BNSS to proclaim him as an absconder had been initiated.

High Court's order

Relying on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Srikant Upadhyay vs. State of Bihar 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 232, the High Court noted that the grant of protection to a person found in defiance of lawful orders is unsustainable.

The Bench observed that since the petition was filed after the NBW was issued and after the application to declare him a proclaimed offender was moved, the petitioner was not entitled to relief.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others LL 2021 SC 211 to state that interim orders not to arrest should not be passed when the Court is not inclined to quash the FIR.

Regarding the merits of the case, the Bench noted that the photographs clearly showed bleeding injuries on the head of the victim and that the petitioner himself admitted his presence at the place of occurrence and the fact regarding live Facebook telecast.

The bench added that determining whether Joshi was an instigator or a peacemaker was a matter for trial and investigation.

"Where the petitioner has been named of a cognizable offence, it would not be appropriate and legal for this Court to pronounce on the correctness of the allegations at the stage of FIR. The provisions of law, more particularly the provisions of Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 clearly enumerate as to when a person can be arrested. In the event of any violation he can certainly approach the courts immediately. It would be preempting the fair investigation if the hands of the police are tied down, more so, when the petitioner himself admits his presence in the place of occurrence", the bench further remarked as it dismissed his petition.