A Madhya Pradesh High court dismissed a man’s plea after he accused of making an offensive remark about Lord Ram and Hinduism on Instagram. The man argued that his account had been hacked two days prior to the post being uploaded. Despite this claim, the court rejected his defense.
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected a petition filed by Mohammad Bilal, seeking to quash an FIR lodged against him for allegedly posting an objectionable message on his Instagram account.
The post in question directed against Lord Ram, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, and Hinduism.
The FIR, dated August 17, 2023, registered at a police station in Satna under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 294, 153A, and 295A, as well as Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
In his defense, Bilal claimed that his Instagram account hacked two days prior to the incident, and the offensive content was posted by unknown individuals. Despite this argument, the court dismissed his plea.
In its ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, represented by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, noted that the petitioner, Mohammad Bilal, had been questioned by the complainant regarding the offensive post on his Instagram account. Instead of explaining that his account had been hacked, Bilal “started abusing and humiliating the complainant and also hurt his religious feelings.”
The court observed,
“This conduct of the petitioner indicates that the defense of someone else hacking his account to upload the offensive post is incorrect. Since the petitioner has admitted to the post being on his Instagram account, he had no right to react in the manner he did with the complainant.”
The judge also remarked that whether the allegations in the FIR are true or not cannot be determined at this stage.
Read Also: Bail Granted by Allahabad HC in ‘Lord Ram Abuse Case’
The order stated,
“Considering the fact that the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, no case is made out warranting interference,”
Given these considerations, the court dismissed Bilal’s petition and allowed the case to proceed under the current legal framework, reaffirming that the matter involved a significant offense that required further investigation.