# Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1292
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-19
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3852 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neha-singh-rathore-neha-kumari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53876
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India is absolute or subject to reasonable
restrictions on its exercise in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India as well as
security of the State, relations with foreign
State, public order, decency, or morality.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a)
and 19(2) - freedom of speech and
Expression - scope of Article 19(1)(a) -
not an absolute right but shall be
considered subject to the reasonable
restrictions - writ petition dismissed
Held:
The court after perusing the allegations of the
FIR and the relevant portion of the case diary,
convinced that the allegations prima facie,
disclose
cognizable
offence,
justifying
an
investigation by the police officers. [Para 21]
The law is trite on the point as stated above
that the fundamental right under Article
19(1)(a) is not an absolute right but be subject
to the reasonable restrictions in the light of
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Kedar Nath Singh
v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, has observed
that the State can impose restrictions to prevent
speech that incites violence or undermines
national unity or disrupts public order. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohia v. State of Bihar and Others, 1966 AIR
740, has upheld restrictions on publications
containing
prejudicial
reports
that
could
endanger public safety. The Apex Court upheld
the restrictions on publications promoting hatred
and violence between communities. [Para 22]

The judgment so cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner would not be applicable in the
present case inasmuch as in re; Imran
Pratapgadhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
after perusing the relevant extract of the poetry
has observed in para-12 that the poem does not
9 All. Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1293
refer to any religion, caste or language and it
does not refer to any persons belonging to any
religion, therefore, by no stretch of imagination,
does it promote enmity between different
groups. However, the petitioner has used
religious angle, Bihar election angle accusing the
Prime Minister by name and saying that the
B.J.P. Government is sacrificing the life of
thousands of soldiers for its vested interest
pushing
the
country
in
a
war
with
a
neighbouring country. [Para 25]

The petitioner is directed to participate in the
investigation, which is pending pursuant to the
impugned FIR, and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer to cooperate in the
investigation and shall further cooperate in the
investigation till filing of police report. [Para 28]

This writ petition is dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of U.P., 1957 SCC
OnLine SC 77; Ajeet Yadav vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others, Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.11525 of 2025; Deepak Vs.
State of U.P. & Others, Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.2077 of 2023; Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of
Maharashtra: AIR 2021 SC 1918; P.
Chidambaram
v.
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24; Kedar
Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955
- referred to; Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v.
State of Bihar and Others, 1966 AIR 740 -
followed; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - applied; Imran
Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat and
another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 - not
applicable.

List of Acts/Statutes
Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023; Information Technology Act, 2000.
List of Keywords
Article 19; Constitution of India; freedom
of speech and expression; scope of Article
19; not absolute; reasonable restrictions;
preservation of public order, decency or
morality; fair, independent, and impartial
investigation.
Appearance of Parties
For the Petitioner: Kaustubh Singh
For the Respondent: G.A.

## Text

1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. the State of
U.P. and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
479 and 'X' vs. State of Rajasthan and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has
held that if offence is heinous in nature and
trial of the accused is in progress, bail
should not be granted.

12.
In
view
of
the
above,
considering the gravity of offence, which is
most heinous in nature and stage of trial of
the applicant as well as his criminal history,
I do not find any good ground to release the
applicant on bail.

13. Accordingly, the instant bail
application is rejected.

14.
However,
considering
the
detention period of the applicant since
17.07.2020, the trial court is directed to
make an endeavour to conclude the trial of
the
applicant,
expeditiously,
without
granting any unnecessary adjournment to
either of the parties.

15. Copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
information and compliance.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3852 of 2025

Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kaustubh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Petitioner's claim of fundamental
right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India is absolute or subject to reasonable
restrictions on its exercise in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India as well as
security of the State, relations with foreign
State, public order, decency, or morality.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a)
and 19(2) - freedom of speech and
Expression - scope of Article 19(1)(a) -
not an absolute right but shall be
considered subject to the reasonable
restrictions - writ petition dismissed
Held:
The court after perusing the allegations of the
FIR and the relevant portion of the case diary,
convinced that the allegations prima facie,
disclose
cognizable
offence,
justifying
an
investigation by the police officers. [Para 21]
The law is trite on the point as stated above
that the fundamental right under Article
19(1)(a) is not an absolute right but be subject
to the reasonable restrictions in the light of
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Kedar Nath Singh
v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, has observed
that the State can impose restrictions to prevent
speech that incites violence or undermines
national unity or disrupts public order. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohia v. State of Bihar and Others, 1966 AIR
740, has upheld restrictions on publications
containing
prejudicial
reports
that
could
endanger public safety. The Apex Court upheld
the restrictions on publications promoting hatred
and violence between communities. [Para 22]

The judgment so cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner would not be applicable in the
present case inasmuch as in re; Imran
Pratapgadhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
after perusing the relevant extract of the poetry
has observed in para-12 that the poem does not
9 All. Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1293
refer to any religion, caste or language and it
does not refer to any persons belonging to any
religion, therefore, by no stretch of imagination,
does it promote enmity between different
groups. However, the petitioner has used
religious angle, Bihar election angle accusing the
Prime Minister by name and saying that the
B.J.P. Government is sacrificing the life of
thousands of soldiers for its vested interest
pushing
the
country
in
a
war
with
a
neighbouring country. [Para 25]

The petitioner is directed to participate in the
investigation, which is pending pursuant to the
impugned FIR, and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer to cooperate in the
investigation and shall further cooperate in the
investigation till filing of police report. [Para 28]

This writ petition is dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of U.P., 1957 SCC
OnLine SC 77; Ajeet Yadav vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others, Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.11525 of 2025; Deepak Vs.
State of U.P. & Others, Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.2077 of 2023; Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of
Maharashtra: AIR 2021 SC 1918; P.
Chidambaram
v.
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24; Kedar
Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955
- referred to; Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v.
State of Bihar and Others, 1966 AIR 740 -
followed; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - applied; Imran
Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat and
another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 - not
applicable.

List of Acts/Statutes
Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023; Information Technology Act, 2000.
List of Keywords
Article 19; Constitution of India; freedom
of speech and expression; scope of Article
19; not absolute; reasonable restrictions;
preservation of public order, decency or
morality; fair, independent, and impartial
investigation.
Appearance of Parties
For the Petitioner: Kaustubh Singh
For the Respondent: G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J. )

 1. Heard Sri Kamal Kishore
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri (Dr.) V. K. Singh, learned Government
Advocate assisted by Sri S. N. Tilhari,
learned AGA and Sri Vipul Kumar Singh,
learned State counsel for the State and
perused the record.

 2. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari,
quashing the impugned First Information
Report dated 27.04.2025, lodged by oppparty no.2 at Police Station Hazratganj,
District Lucknow, registered as Case Crime
No.0111 of 2025, under Sections 196(1)(a),
196(1)(b), 197(1)(a), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c),
197(1)(d), 353(1)(c), 353(2), 302, 152 of
BNS, 2023 and 69a of the IT Act, 2008, as
contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ
petition.

(ii). issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus,
commanding the opp-party no.3, not to
arrest, humiliate, harass, and victimize the
petitioners, on the basis of the impugned
First Information Report dated 27.04.2025,
registered as Case Crime No.0111 of 2025,
under
Section
196(1)(a),
196(1)(b),
197(1)(a), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 197(1)(d),
353(1)(c), 353(2), 302, 152 of BNS, 2023
and 69a of the IT Act, 2008, at Police
Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow, as
contained in Annexure no.1."
1294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has drawn attention towards the
impugned FIR which has been lodged
under
so
many
sections
levelling
allegations against the petitioner. He has
also submitted that, prima facie, those
offences do not make out against her. Sri
Sharma has further stated that the petitioner
is a singer and a social activist and is
having fundamental right under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India to
express her views on social media and no
authority of the State can violate such
fundamental right.

 4. Sri Sharma has drawn attention
of this Court towards the grounds: L, M, N
& O of the writ petition saying that the
allegations of the FIR do not attract the
ingredients of those sections under which
the FIR has been lodged. For the
convenience, grounds: L to O reads as
under:

"L. Because even if the post
of the accused petitioner spoken by words
has become viral amongst different groups
of the person will not attract any of the
provisions of Sections 197(1)(a), 197(1)(b),
197(1)(c),
197(1)(d).
Such
post
of
petitioner having become viral in our
country or other countries cannot in any
manner be said to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony among the various
groups of person belonging to different
caste and religion hence the registration of
the FIR under the aforesaid section is
nothing but a gross abuse of the process of
law.

M. Because not even a
single ingredient of this Section also is
prima facie made out because the petitioner
has not made or published or circulated any
statement or any so-called false information
including electronic means which would
amount to having incited any class or
community or any person to commit any
offence against any other class and
community.

N. Because by reading each
and every content of the FIR sought to be
quashed even through the magnifying
glasses no person having the common
knowledge of the observation can say that
the words spoken, written and published by
the accused would have excited cessation
or armed rebellion or subversive activity
encouraging feelings of separatists or
endangering sovereignty and integrity of
India making the accused liable for the
imprisonment of life. The leveling of such
allegation of such a higher magnitude
without any iota of evidence seems to be
ridiculous in nature without any legs to
stand even.

O. Because no offence under
Sections 196(1)(a), 196(1)(b), 197(1)(a),
197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(c),
353(2), 302, 152 of BNS, 2023 and 69a of
the IT Act, 2008 has ever been committed
by the petitioner herein."

 5. Sri Sharma appearing on behalf
of the petitioner has relied upon the
judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in re; Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of
Gujarat and another reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 678. He has drawn attention of
this Court to a portion of poem by one
Imran Pratapgarhi and submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared
protected the said poetry under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

6. Sri Sharma has categorically
made a submission before the Court that
investigation is going on pursuant to the
9 All. Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1295
impugned FIR and the petitioner is ready to
cooperate
in
the
investigation.
He
contended that the petitioner has not been
served with any notice or summon pursuant
to the impugned FIR.

7. Per contra, Sri V.K. Singh,
learned
Government
Advocate
has
submitted at the very outset that during the
course of investigation, Sections 152 and
159 B.N.S. have been added. Learned
Government Advocate has also stated that
in the present case the judgment of Apex
Court in re: Imran Pratapgadhi (supra)
would not be applicable.

8. Learned Government Advocate
has shown the relevant papers of the case
diary to apprise the incriminating materials
affecting the integrity and sovereignty of
the country. In the case diary, there are
some contents/ tweets of the petitioner on
her social media account.

9. Tweet No.15 posted by the
petitioner reads as under:-

"कममीर मेंआतंकी हमला हुआ और उसके फौरन बाद
मोदीजी नेआज मबहार मेंरैली कर दी... मबहार के मंच से ही
पामकटतान को धमका मदया और जनता ने भी ताबडतोड तामलयााँ
पीट दीं... जो लोग भी मोदीजी की पॉमलमटक्स और मबहार की
हालत को जानतेहैं,हैं उन्हें खूब समझ मेंआ रहा हैमक पामकटतान को
धमकी देने केमलए मोदीजी को मबहार क्यों आना पडा! उन्हें मबहार
इसमलए आना पडा... तामक मबहार की जनता सेराष्रवाद के नाम पर
वोट बटोरा जा सके... और मबहार की जनता केमुद्दों को मफर
सेसाइडलाइन मकया जा सके... अब मोदीजी और उनकेसाथ वालों
को काम CRLP No. 3852 of 2025 3 के नाम पर तो
वोट ममलना हैनहीं... क्योंमक काम तो हुआ ही नहीं ह... ेै और
भ्रष्ाचार इतना हुआ हैमक ईमानदारी से चुनाव हो तो बहुतों की
जमानत जब्त हो जाये. मबहार चुनाव मेंउन्हें या तो महंदू-मुसलमान के
नाम पर वोट ममल सकता हैया भारत-पामकटतान के नाम पर...
तीसरा कोई राटता नहीं ह... और ये लोग बा ेै ़िी दोनों राटते
अमख्तयार करेंगे."
10. Tweet No.16 reads as under:-
"आतंकवामदयों को ढूाँढने और अपनी गलती मानने की बजाय
भाजपा देश को युद्ध मेंझोंकना चाहती ह... ेै
 भाजपा देश के
हज़ारों सैमनकों की जान जोमखम में डालना चाहती ह."ेै

11. Tweet No.34 posted by the
petitioner reads as under:- "जब कलमा पढने से
इनकार करने पर गोली मार ही दी गई तो ये म़िटसा मीमडया को
मकसने बताया? मृतकों में एक नाम सईद हुसेन शाह का भी ह. ेै
क्या सईद ने भी कलमा पढने से इनकार मकया था? अपने मदमाग
लगाइये... वो मत सोमचये जो भाजपा चाहती ह."ेै

12. Learned Government Advocate
has also stated that the social media
account of the petitioner has been widely
circulated in the world specially in Pakistan
and so many posts have been received
during the investigation from Pakistan
supporting
the
contents
of
present
petitioner. Learned Government Advocate
has further submitted that timings of the
aforesaid propagative tweets is worth
noticing inasmuch as on 22.04.2025, the
unfortunate
incident
took
place
at
Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir wherein 26
tourists have been brutally killed by the
terrorists after knowing the religion of the
tourists as all the tourists were Hindu by
religion. At that point of time, security and
integrity of the country was under threat
and the Government was taking all possible
efforts to curve such situation but during
that period, the present petitioner started
making aforesaid tweets without thinking
that the situation is so sensitive and that
time of tweets should not be circulated on
the social media. He submitted that bare
perusal of the aforesaid tweets would make
it crystal clear that the petitioner is having
so much vengeance against Bhartiya Janta
Parity and its leaders including the Prime
Minister. In her tweets, she commented on
State politics of Bihar having ulterior
motive and extraneous design in her mind.
1296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
She commended that the B.J.P. is willing to
start war and is willing to sacrifice
thousands of Army Soldiers. She tried to
create the Hindu-Muslim angle, therefore,
the basic fabric of the country where Hindu
and Muslim live together peacefully has
been tried to be distorted by the petitioner.
The aforesaid illegal act and misdeed of the
petitioner may not be protected in the light
of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India but such right may be denied under
sub-clause (2) of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India which categorically
provides that nothing in sub-clause (a) of
clause (1) shall affect the operation of any
existing law, or prevent the State from
making any law, insofar as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub-clause
in
the
interests
of
the
sovereignty and integrity of India as well as
security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign State, public order, decency or
morality.

13. Learned Government Advocate
has referred the dictum of the Apex Court
in re; Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of U.P.,
1957 SCC OnLine SC 77, wherein the view
of the Apex Court is that the claim of
fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) of
the Constitution of India is not absolute but
the said fundamental right shall remain
subject to the reasonable restrictions.\

14. Learned Government Advocate
has referred the judgment of the Division
Bench in re: Ajeet Yadav vs. State of U.P.
and 2 others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.11525 of 2025, wherein vide order
dated 03.06.2025, the Division Bench has
observed as under:

 "A post written by the petitioner
against the Prime Minister regarding his
decision to desist from war etc. carries
scurrilous language against the Head of the
Government. It was published on the social
media before it was reported to the Police,
leading to registration of the impugned
FIR.

 Learned counsel for the petitioner
has vehemently argued that the petitioner is
a young man and was carried away by
emotions.

 Emotions cannot be permitted to
overflow to an extent that Constitutional
Authorities of the country are dragged into
disrepute by employment of disrespectful
words.

 In the totality of circumstances,
we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere
with the impugned FIR in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

 The
petition
is
dismissed,
accordingly."

15. As per Sri V.K. Singh, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, summarised the legal position by
laying the following guidelines to be
followed by the High Courts in exercise of
their inherent jurisdiction:

 "(1) Where the allegations made
in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

 (2) Where the allegations in the
first information report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the FIR do not
9 All. Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1297
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

 (3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the
accused.

 (4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

 (5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

 (6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.

 (7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
16. Sri Singh has stated that in
view of the aforesaid guidelines, the
present writ petition is not maintainable
inasmuch none of the aforesaid guidelines
are being attracted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case to quash/
set aside the impugned FIR. In the present
case, the allegations made in the First
Information Report, prima facie, constitute
the offences under which the FIR has been
lodged. Further, the material so collected
by the investigating agency discloses
cognizable
offence
justifying
an
investigation by the police under Section
156(1) of the Code.

17.
The
learned
Government
Advocate has drawn the attention of this
Court towards the judgment and order
dated 21.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.2077 of 2023, Deepak Vs.
State of U.P. & Others, dismissing the writ
petition thereby the FIR was assailed
wherein
the
allegation
against
that
petitioner was that he had made derogatory
and disrespectful comments on Hon'ble the
Chief Minister of U.P. and others. Relevant
portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as
under:-

 "After having heard submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
perused the impugned F.I.R., it is apparent
that the petitioner had made a derogatory
and disrespectful comments on Hon'ble
Chief Minister of U.P., Yogi Adityanath Ji
and Bageshwar Baba, Shri Dhirendra
Shastri. Moreover, from 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 made
out against the petitioner.

 In view of the ratio laid down by
the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure
1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra:
AIR 2021 SC 1918 and on perusal of the
impugned F.I.R. and material on record, it
transpires that, prima facie, a case is made
out against the petitioner. The submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners relates to disputed questions of
facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by
this Court in jurisdiction of under Article
226 of Constitution of India.

 From the perusal of the F.I.R.,
prima facie, it cannot be said that no
cognizable offence is made out, hence no
ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or
staying the arrest of the petitioner.
The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly,
dismissed."

18. Sri V.K. Singh has also relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in re;
P.
Chidambaram
v.
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, wherein
the Apex Court in para-66 has held as
under:-

 "66. As held by the Supreme
Court in a catena of judgments that there is
a well-defined and demarcated function in
the field of investigation and its subsequent
adjudication. It is not the function of the
court to monitor the investigation process
so long as the investigation does not violate
any provision of law. It must be left to the
discretion of the investigating agency to
decide the course of investigation. If the
court is to interfere in each and every
stage of the investigation and the
interrogation of the accused, it would
affect the normal course of investigation.
It must be left to the investigating agency
to proceed in its own manner in
interrogation of the accused, nature of
questions put to him and the manner of
interrogation of the accused."
19. At last, learned Government
Advocate
has
stated
that
since
the
investigation is going on and cooperation
of the petitioner is required in the aforesaid
investigation and during the course of
investigation, the investigating authority
shall follow the relevant provisions of law,
so this writ petition is misconceived at this
stage.

20. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material available on record, we are of the
considered opinion that although Article 19
of the Constitution of India gives all
citizens the rights regarding freedom of
speech and expression but subject to
reasonable restrictions for preserving interalia public order, decency or morality. It is
trite in law that the extent of protection of
speech and expression would depend on
whether, such speech and expression would
constitute a propagation of ideas or would
have any social value. If the answer to the
said question is in affirmative, such speech
would be protected under Article 19 (1) (a);
if the answer is in negative, such speech
and expression would not be protected
under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution
of India.

21. After perusing the allegations
of the FIR and the relevant portion of the
case diary, we are convinced that the
allegations in the First Information Report
and other material, prima facie, disclose
cognizable
offence,
justifying
an
investigation by the police officers.

22. The law is trite on the point as
stated above that the fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(a) is not an absolute
right but the aforesaid right shall be
considered subject
to the reasonable
restrictions in the light of Article 19(2) of
9 All. Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1299
the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in re; Kedar Nath Singh v.
State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, has observed
that the State can impose restrictions to
prevent speech that incites violence or
undermines national unity or disrupts
public order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in re; Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of
Bihar and Others, 1966 AIR 740, has
upheld
restrictions
on
publications
containing prejudicial reports that could
endanger public safety. It has been the
consistent view of the Constitutional Courts
that the restrictions may be imposed to
prevent speech that incites violence, riots or
public disorder. The Apex Court upheld the
restrictions on publications promoting
hatred and violence between communities.

23.
In
view
of
the
facts,
circumstances and reasons as well as the
case laws so cited by the learned counsel
for the parties, as considered above, since
the allegations of the FIR and other
material disclose, prima facie, cognizable
offence, justifying investigation by the
police officers, we are not inclined to
interfere in the impugned FIR.

24. Further, the present case so
placed and argued by the learned counsel
for the petitioner does not qualify the
touchstone of the guidelines so formulated
by the Apex Court in re; Bhajan Lal
(supra). We are in respectful agreement
with the judgement of the Apex Court in re;
Bhajan Lal (supra).

25. The judgment so cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner would not
be applicable in the present case inasmuch
as in re; Imran Pratapgadhi (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court after perusing the
relevant extract of the poetry has observed
in para-12 that the poem does not refer to
any religion, caste or language and it does
not refer to any persons belonging to any
religion, therefore, by no stretch of
imagination, does it promote enmity
between different groups whereas in the
present case, timings of the tweets of the
petitioner are so crucial and worth
considering inasmuch as the aforesaid
tweets have been circulated immediately
after
the
unfortunate
incident
dated
22.04.2025
at
Pahalgam,
Jammu
&
Kashmir. The case diary as placed before
us shows that there are so many tweets but
some of them have been reproduced in this
order that goes to show that the posts
written by the petitioner are against the
Prime Minister of India and Home Minister
of India. Name of the Prime Minister of
India has been used in a derogatory and
disrespectful manner. In such comments,
the petitioner has used religious angle,
Bihar election angle accusing the Prime
Minister by name and saying that the B.J.P.
Government is sacrificing the life of
thousands of soldiers for its vested interest
pushing the country in a war with a
neighbouring country.

26. Since the investigation is going
on, therefore, we restrain ourselves to
comment on the merits of the issue having
expectation that fair, independent and
impartial investigation is conducted and
concluded strictly in accordance with law,
without
being
influenced
from
any
observation made herein above and the
same may not affect the investigation in
any manner whatsoever.

27. In view of what has been
considered herein above, this writ petition
is dismissed being misconceived.

28. The petitioner is directed to
participate in the investigation, which is
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending pursuant to the impugned FIR, and
she shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on 26.09.2025 at 11.00 a.m. sharp
to cooperate in the investigation and shall
further cooperate in the investigation till
filing of police report.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16946 of 2024
With
Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 40591 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 17602 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 18422 of 2024

Navneet Sachan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Abhishek
Kumar
Mishra,
Sri
Chandrakesh Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue of Consideration
Whether the "due discussion" required
under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules,
2021 was a substantive application of
mind by the authorities or a mere empty
formality thereby vitiating FIR under the
Act.

Headnotes
U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3 -
group of persons acting either singly or
collectively with the object of disturbing
public order or of gaining any undue
temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage - Section 5 - Preparation of
gang chart - due discussion must disclose
- disturbance of the public order - gaining
of any undue temporal pecuniary material
or other advantage - writ petition and
application allowed
Held:
The Court is of the view that even if the first
information report did not mention the details
with regard to the disturbance of the public
order and gaining of any undue temporal
pecuniary material or other advantage but the
"due discussion" definitely ought to have
mentioned about them. The "due discussion"
was an empty formality and, therefore, Rule
5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 was not
followed. It is a discussion which is privately
done between the police officials and the district
administration and they need not be made open
to the public as well as the ingredients of the
due discussion may not even be mentioned
in the first information report but when the due
discussion was brought before the Court , it
should make out from the reading of it that the
due discussion was not done summarily but the
officials had applied their minds to the effect
that the accused under the Gangster Act, 1986
was disturbing public order and was gaining
pecuniary and temporal advantage. The due
discussion should not be an empty formality.
The Court found that the gang leader, Abbas
Ansari, was transferred to Kasganj Jail has also
not been considered in the due discussion. Also,
in between the passing of the judgment and
order of the dated 15.5.2024 in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 2094 of 2024 and till the
lodging of the instant First Information Report
no new facts had been brought on record to
illustrate that the petitioner was still functioning
as a member of any gang and that he was
disturbing public order and making any undue
temporal pecuniary material or other advantage.
[Para 10]
The writ petition stands allowed. The Application
u/s. 528 BNSS stands allowed and the NonBailable Warrant stands quashed. The writ
petitions vis-a-vis the petitioners in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. - 17602 of 2024 and in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 18422 of 2024
are also accordingly, allowed. First Information
Report dated 31.8.2024 given rise to Case Crime
No. 556 of 2024, under Sections 2/3 of