The Allahabad high court declined to release a male implicated of publishing casteist remarks on social networks versus Chandra Shekhar Azad, Member of Parliament from Nagina in Uttar Pradesh.
< source media ="(min-width:768px)" alt ="Chandra Shekhar Azad is the Lok Sabha MP from Nagina in Uttar Pradesh. (FILE PHOTO)" > < img src ="https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-img/img/2026/07/24/400x225/Chandra-Shekhar-Azad-is-the-Lok-Sabha-MP-from-Nagi_1784920722092.jpg"alt ="Chandra Shekhar Azad is the Lok Sabha MP from Nagina in Uttar Pradesh. (FILE PHOTO)"title ="Chandra Shekhar Azad is the Lok Sabha MP from Nagina in Uttar Pradesh. (FILE PHOTO)"width ="360"height ="202"loading ="eager">The Allahabad high court stated that at the phase of framing of charges, the court is just needed to take a look at whether a prima facie case exists and not to carry out a “mini-trial”.
In an order dated July 21, Justice Santosh Rai dismissed the criminal appeal submitted by Chandra Prakash Singh alias Goli Thakur, who challenged the high court’s order declining his discharge application in a case signed up under Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (deliberate insult), Section 66 of the IT Act and arrangements of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the appellant, the FIR was lodged after a hold-up of about 7 days and no particular casteist words were pointed out in his social networks post and the accusations were unclear.
The counsel for the state federal government opposed the appeal, sending that the appellant was particularly called in the FIR and the examination gathered adequate prima facie product, consisting of the social networks post consisting of the objectionable declarations.
The court stated that although the FIR did not replicate the particular casteist words presumably utilized, it did declare that violent remarks had actually been made versus Azad.
The court likewise observed that the declarations of prosecution witnesses particularly pointed out the violent words presumably utilized and supported the prosecution case.
The court stated that a prima facie perusal of the product suggested that the impugned remarks were supposedly directed versus a specific neighborhood coming from the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.