# Jubair Ansari & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 944
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 12863 of 2026
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jubair-ansari-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54421
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has further relied upon the decision rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini and others vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2013 (83)
ACC 132 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasised that "Be that as it may the common
thread running through both the orders is that this Court had in Rajbir's case (supra) directed the
addition of a charge under Section 302 IPC to every case in which the accused are charged with
Section 304-B. That was not, in our opinion, the true purport of the order passed by this Court. The
direction was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the
evidence available in the case. All that this Court meant to say was that in a case where a charge
alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 IPC can also be framed if the evidence
otherwise permits. No other meaning could be deduced from the order of this Court."

9. In the case in hand and from perusal of records, it transpires that the deceased died within seven
years of her marriage at her matrimonial home and the immediate cause of death was asphyxia due to
hanging and the viscera was preserved, however, the chemical analysis report is not on record. The charges
have been framed against the applicants under sections 498A, 304B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Thus,
prima facie from perusal of evidence, there is no evidence or material on record to justify framing of a charge
under section 302 IPC. It transpires that the order dated 22.01.2026 has been passed against spirit and tenor of
the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini's case. The doctor who conducted the
autopsy in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that "ligature mark was found and the
immediate cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of hanging as the congestion was found in the abdomen,
therefore, viscera was preserved." The application dated 16.10.2025 moved by mother of the deceased for
framing of the additional charge under section 302 IPC does not disclose any reasoning or justification for
invoking section 302 IPC except in the light of Rajbir's Case directives. The charge framed under section
304B IPC is neither defective nor any other evidence is available for the alteration of the charge.

10. Accordingly, keeping in view the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasvinder
Saini's case (supra), the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by learned Additional District Judge, FTC-I,
Varanasi is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court concerned to conclude the trial
expeditiously in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

11. With the aforesaid observation, the application under section 528 BNSS is allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 944
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 12863 of 2026

Jubair Ansari & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
4 All. Jubair Ansari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
945
Issue for consideration
In the present case, the informant lodged an FIR alleging that the accused persons shared anti-national and
objectionable Facebook posts containing derogatory remarks against the Prime Minister of India and RSS.

Headnotes
A. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023-Sections 196(1)(a), 351(2), 352, 353(2), 3(5)-Bhartiya
Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023-Section 528-Social Media Posts-Quashing of proceedings-
Anti-national and objectionable Facebook posts-Charge-sheet filed after investigation-Prima
facie case disclosed-No mini-trial permissible-Disputed questions of fact to be examined during
trial-Application dismissed.(Para 15 to 18)
Held
The court held that the allegations in the FIR were supported by material collected during investigation and
disclosed prima facie case. At the stage of cognizance and summoning, the court is only required to ascertain
whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding and not whether the accused are likely to be convicted. Since
the pleas of false implication and innocence involved disputed questions of fact requiring trial, no case for
exercise of inherent powers under section 528 BNSS was made out. (E-6)

Case law cited
S.W. Palanitkar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2002) 1 SCC 241, Nupur Talwar Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Another (2012) 11 SCC 465-referred to.

List of Acts
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023, Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Information Technology
Act, 2000.

List of Keywords
Social media Posts, Facebook Post, Anti-National content, Derogatory remarks, Prime Minister, RSS,Hate
Speech, Promoting Enmity, Public Harmony, Religious Feelings, Deliberate and Malicious Act, Cognizable
offence, Inherent jurisdiction, Section 528 BNSS.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICITON: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No.-12863 OF 2026
Jubair Ansari And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another
From the judgment and order dated 29.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Applicant(s)
Deepak Kumar Singh, Shishir Kumar Singh, Vinanjay Kumar Patel
Adv. for Opposite Party(s)
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash entire proceeding of
Criminal Case no. 12299 of 2025 (State vs. Sabbir Ansari and others) arising out of Case Crime no.
78 of 2025 under sections 353(2), 196(1)(a), 3(5), 352 and 351(2) of BNS, PS- Anapara, District
Sonbhadra and also quash charge sheet dated 13.5.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order
dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 3, Sonbhadra.
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2/informant lodged FIR bearing Case
Crime no. 78 of 2025 under sections 353(2), 196(1)(a) and 3(5) of BNS against applicants and
another co-accused alleging therein that applicants have posted anti-national posts along with
objectionable post against Prime Minister of India with derogatory remarks. The posts are alleged
to be shared/circulate from Facebook ID of a Pakistani Youtuber. The Facebook account of accused
persons shows that almost every post are anti-national, against Prime Minster of India and
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh(RSS).

4. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet submitted against the applicants on
dated 13.5.2025, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up vide impugned order dated
15.11.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

5. Learned counsel for applicants contended that from perusal of FIR and Case Diary, no
specific date and time of alleged incident has been mentioned. Informant has lodged the present
FIR only with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. Allegations made in the FIR are vague and
without substantial evidence and the FIR is a result of malicious intent to harass the applicants.
Without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate concerned has
passed the order impugned in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind which is
illegal, unjust and against the principles of law and as such entire proceeding initiated against the
applicants are liable to be quashed and set aside, since basically allegation has been fastened only
on the basis of a post on Facebook.

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant
application and submitted that entire arguments raised at the behest of applicants are subject matter
of trial which involves appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be adjudicated at this stage,
hence no interference is required.

7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and
perusing the records, this Court notes that Social Media has caught the imagination of People.
People express their views on the social networking site. They now access social media through
various application and devices. People invariably post information and express their opinion freely
and openly on the Social Media. However sometimes the line is crossed when such information is
posted without understanding the consequence of such instances. One way, if we consider life has
become very easy and easily accessible where people can get together and express their views on
certain issues. It is one way very good where the views of the people are known to everyone. But
sometimes the Social Media is misused where people post such comments which hurts the feelings
of others and triggers disharmony on a large scale.

8. The Information technology Act, 2000, categorically makes one liable on any illegal
content posted on Social Media. Section 66(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000 defines the
punishment for sending ?offensive?messages through a computer or any other device like a mobile
phone or a tablet. However the Supreme Court declared Section 66(A) of Information and
Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional. It has observed that the section has been widely
misused. It laid down that it actually amounts to restraining citizens to exchange their views. This
section has been misused by the police in various states to arrest innocent persons for posting
4 All. Jubair Ansari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
947
critical comments about social and political issues and political leaders on social networking sites.
The Court had said such a law hit at the root of the liberty and freedom of expression, the two
cardinal pillars of Democracy. It said that it hit and went against the freedom of speech and
expression which has been enshrined in the Constitution. The Court however upheld the validity of
Section 69(B) of the Act of 2000 and the 2011 guidelines for the implementation of the Information
and Technology Act, that allowed the Government to block websites, if their content had the
potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India?s relationship with other
countries.

9. The Supreme Court delivered the above judgement on the bunch of petition filed over
the misuse of the Penal provisions by the Government authority. A Public Interest Litigation was
filed by a Delhi student, Ms. Shreya Singhal taking into account the law, it was held that the phrase
of the section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is so wide and vague and incapable
of being so judged objectively. It also stands unconstitutional to some extent as it falls against the
article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

10. Social Media is actually to express the views and opinions about any issues. Such rights
should not be misused or overused. It is a duty or responsibility of every individual towards the
society before posting anything in such social networking sites. In 2012, one of the early cases of
misuse of Social Media came to the Government?s attention, when morphed pictures and videos of
earthquake victims began to go viral on the Social Media. Miscreants were morphing these images
to show that these women were Muslim victims of civil riots in Assam and Burma. This was done
to provoke further riots by vested interest and it did bring a reaction.

11. Another drawback of the Social Media is the evolution of adult videos or porn videos
which are so easily accessible by minors, which is resulting in the changing behaviour of the
society. Accessing the internet has become so easy these days that it is difficult to draw the line of
restriction.

12. Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023?which replaced Section
153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?is attracted to a Facebook post when the content deliberately
promotes enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste, or community. Under this section, a post can lead to a cognizable
offence (meaning police can register an FIR and arrest without a warrant), if it disrupts public
harmony.

13. The key aspects attracting Section 196(1)(a) BNS are as under:

 a. Intent (Mens Rea): The post must show a clear, deliberate intention to create
disharmony, not just a vague statement.

 b. Targeting Groups: The content must target a specific group (caste, religion,
community), rather than merely criticizing a policy or Government.
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 c. Impact: The post is deemed likely to provoke breach of peace or cause enmity
between communities.

 Examples of Prohibited Content: Mocking a community using derogatory terms,
promoting hatred based on religion, or attempting to cause violent conflict between groups.

 Reasonable Person Test: The court assesses whether a "reasonable, strong-minded, firm
and courageous" person would be swayed by the post to commit disorder, rather than focusing on a
"weak and vacillating mind"

14. Through the post initiated by the applicant over Facebook amounted to a ?deliberate
and malicious attempt? to outrage religious feelings. ?...on the face of it, the conduct of the
applicant in depicting the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh(RSS), which is a organization rendering
its services to the various sections of society with its allied organization for last 100 years, along
with the Prime Minister of this country who is indirectly elected by the majority of citizen of our
country who invoked their right to vote for a particular political party.

15. The allegations fastened upon the applicants are corroborated with the evidence
collected during investigation prima facie up to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned to take
cognizance of offence in pursuance to Section 3(5), 196(1)(a), 351(2), 352 & 353(2) of BNS. This
Court is of the opinion that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a
prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to
examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W.
Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241 it was held that the test
which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not
whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the limited
purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished
from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the
material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not
"sufficient to prove and establish the guilt".

16. From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is
made out against the applicants. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicants are
factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be
conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS,
this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial.

17. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised
sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the
ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. There is hardly any infirmity in
the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 3,
Sonbhadra and as such no case of seeking interface by this Court is made out by learned counsel
for applicants.
4 All. Satinder Singh Bhasin & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
949
18. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits
and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 949
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 25724 of 2022

Satinder Singh Bhasin & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
An FIR was lodged against the applicant for alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy
and large-scale misappropriation of funds regarding the "Grand Venice" Project. As per the Supreme Court's
direction, 46 identical FIRs across Uttar Pradesh and New Delhi were clubbed together with this matter as the
parent case, leading to a composite charge sheet. The applicants challenged the entire criminal proceedings.

Headnotes
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 406-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 482Cheating and Misappropriation-Real Estate fraud-Civil dispute vs. Criminal offence- The
presence of a civil dispute or parallel civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution where
the allegations prima facie disclose fraud, inducement, dishonest intention-Where the FIR and
statements recorded u/s 161 CrPC prima facie disclose the commission of an offence, pleas
involving purely factual questions require adjudication on evidence during trial and cannot be
conclusively determined in a section 482 application-Application dismissed.(Para 13 to 19)
Held
The court ruled that the allegations in the present case pertain to large-scale financial irregularities and
cheating affecting a substantial number of investors/victims. Therefore any premature interference with the
parent FIR would have the effect of prejudicing the rights and interests of a large number of victims, whose
grievances are sought to be addressed through the consolidated proceedings. Furthermore, the active role
and mens rea of the applicants are factual matters to be determined strictly at trial, and their poor conductevident from the Supreme court cancelling their bail for non-compliance and their concealment of the
composite charge-sheet's filing to secure interim protection disentitles them to any discretionary relief. (E-6)

Case law Cited
G. Sagar Suri Vs State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636, S.K. Alag Vs State of U.P. & Ors (2008) 5 SCC 662 & Aneeta
Hada Vs Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd (2012) 5 SCC 661,State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp
(1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, P.
Swaroopa Rani Vs M. Hari Narayana Alias Hari Babu,( 2008) 5 SCC 765-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

List of Keywords