Saturday, April 27, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Bombay High Court grants bail to man booked for post against Dr BR Ambedkar on social media

The learned counsel for applicant Ms. Tahera Abdul Rashid Qureshi, submits that applicant being a RTI activist and whistle blower he has been falsely implicated.

The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to a man, who was booked for putting up a post on his Facebook account, which allegedly disrespected Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (Baba Saheb Ambedkar) and directed the Investigating Officer to block the Facebook account of the applicant, to prevent further circulation of the objectionable post.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde granted anticipatory bail to Abdul Rahim Abdul Gani Ghadiyali on a PR Bond of Rs 20,000 under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1889.

According to prosecution, the accused sent a post on his Facebook Account, which allegedly disrespected Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar, held in high esteem by the complainant, being a member of the Schedule Caste.

The complainant lodged FIR against the applicant at Mumbra Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1889.

The Counsel for applicant Tahera Abdul Rashid Qureshi submitted that the applicant, being an RTI activist and a whistle blower, has been falsely implicated. He said an unknown person had created a Facebook account in the name of the applicant and sent a post on his Facebook account. Thus, he disowns the Facebook account and post.

Also Read: Supreme Court directs Centre to look into PIL filed by postgraduate doctors alleging alteration in NEET Super speciality exam

Investigating Officer S.S. Shelke asked the Senior Inspector, Cyber Cell to verify the I.P. address and other details of the account and submit a report before the Court.

APP for the state A.D. Khamkhedkar submitted before the Court that a report was likely to be received within a month to ascertain whether it was a fake account of applicant or not and till then, it would not be justified to deny the protection.

The Court issued notice to respondent-2 Pravin Vinayak Pawar, returnable by the next date of hearing, which is October 25.

spot_img

News Update