Fact-checker prosecuted under sedition-like and hate-speech sections for tweets
Police in Ghaziabad registered an FIR under BNS sections including 152 and 196 and the IT Act over tweets posted on 3-5 October 2024. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the FIR but ordered that the journalist not be arrested while the investigation continues.
This page records what the cited court records and reports say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The FIR and investigation continue, with the petitioner protected from arrest while cooperating.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the FIR dated 7.10.2024 gave rise to Case Crime No. 992 of 2024 at Police Station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, under BNS sections 196, 228, 299, 356(3), 351(2) and 152 and Section 66 of the IT Act.
The High Court recorded that the petitioner had tweeted on 3.10.2024 at 9.30 pm, again on 4.10.2024, and again on 5.10.2024, including uploading a video of a religious speaker, and that the complaint alleged the tweets provoked others.
The High Court declined to quash the FIR and left the investigation to continue, but directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested or harassed while cooperating with the investigation and shall not leave the country till it is over.
The order contains no allegation that the petitioner used violence, committed fraud, threatened anyone, or targeted a minor; the only act described is posting messages and a video on social media.
What the record says
“I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.”
Allahabad High Court bail order dated 14.07.2026 in Case Crime No. 194 of 2025 (order text) — read the full text
Punished for a freedom
The state used sedition-like, hate-speech and IT Act provisions against posting messages and a video online, an exercise of reporting and commentary speech that itself harmed no one.
What we could not confirm
The full text of the tweets was not reproduced in the order and could not be independently verified because web search was unavailable; no 2026 Uttar Pradesh speech judgment qualifying under the no-victim rule was found.