As per the FIR, the video was circulated with an intention to hurt the sentiments of Hindus and to humiliate them. It also mentions that as an effect of this video, there was resentment among the Hindus.
@ISalilTiwari reports
lawbeat.in/news-updates/v…
@ISalilTiwari reports
lawbeat.in/news-updates/v…
As per the informant in the case, while browsing Facebook on October 23, 201, he had landed on a video in which obscene and insulting statements were being made by one Maulana against the people of the Hindu community.
As per Pandey, in the said viral video, Maulana had even commented that ‘Hazrat Adam is the father of Hindus’. Pandey had alleged that comments like this were hurtful to his other Hindus' sentiments.
However, the accused had claimed that allegations against them were fake and no such video had ever been circulated.
Taking note of the facts and submissions of all the parties, the bench refused to quash the FIR at this stage.
“From the facts brought on record, we find that prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed in the first information report," court observed.
“From the facts brought on record, we find that prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed in the first information report," court observed.
Court further held that "Whether or not such viral video contains any offending material is required to be examined by the investigating agencies."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
