In a significant legal reprieve, the Allahabad High Court on Friday stayed the arrest of Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of Alt News, until January 6 in connection with an FIR accusing him of inciting enmity among religious groups. The court also restricted him from traveling abroad during this period.
The FIR, lodged by the Ghaziabad police last month, stemmed from a complaint by Udita Tyagi, general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust. Tyagi alleged that Zubair’s social media post, which featured a video clip of a controversial program by Yati Narsinghanand, was intended to provoke violence against the priest.
The FIR cited multiple charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds and defamation. Despite the serious accusations, the High Court bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Nalin Kumar Srivastava expressed preliminary doubts about the applicability of certain charges related to inciting separatist activities.
During the proceedings, the court noted, “We are tentatively of the view that while the offence under section 196 BNS might be discernible, the allegations under section 152 BNS, suggesting incitement to commit offences like secession or armed rebellion, require further examination.”
Acknowledging the need for a detailed exploration of the term ‘separatist activity,’ the bench granted the state three weeks to file a comprehensive counter affidavit. This decision underscores the court’s cautious approach to handling allegations of such a serious nature.
Reflecting on Zubair’s prior engagements with the law, the bench referenced a Supreme Court order from July 2022, which had previously granted him bail in several criminal cases. This precedent played a crucial role in their decision to stay his arrest, conditioned upon his cooperation with the ongoing investigation and the surrender of his passport to the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner.
Zubair, through his legal counsel, argued that his post was an attempt to alert the police about Narsinghanand’s potentially inflammatory actions rather than a call for violence. He also contested the defamation charges, asserting that sharing publicly available videos for law enforcement scrutiny could not constitute defamation.
