Allahabad HC Upholds Charge Framing Against Accused Who Posted Alleged Casteist Remarks on Facebook

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against charge framing under the SC/ST Act, holding that the Facebook post and witness statements established sufficient prima facie material.

Justice Santosh Rai, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 7055 of 2026 on 21 July 2026. The appellant, Chandra Prakash Singh alias Goli Thakur, had challenged an order dated 24 June 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hamirpur, by which his discharge application in Session Case No. 237 of 2026 had been rejected. The High Court found no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the trial court's order and affirmed that the material on record, including a Facebook post and the statements of prosecution witnesses, disclosed a prima facie case sufficient to proceed to trial.

The Charges and the FIR

The FIR arises from Case Crime No. 77 of 2025, registered at Police Station Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. The case was registered under Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, and Section 3(1)Dha of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The complaint alleged that the appellant had made abusive remarks against Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad. The FIR was lodged approximately seven days after the alleged incident. It named the appellant specifically but did not reproduce the particular casteist words said to have been used.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the Facebook post containing the alleged objectionable statements and placed the relevant footage on record. Prosecution witnesses, including Neeraj Kumar and Shobhendu Kumar, gave statements in which they specifically mentioned the abusive words they had seen or heard.

Grounds Urged for Discharge

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant pressed several grounds. The FIR was delayed by about seven days and no casteist words had been specifically mentioned in it. The allegations were said to be vague, and the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)Dha of the SC/ST Act were argued to be absent. Counsel contended that the trial court had not properly engaged with the discharge application and had rejected it on the basis of surmises and conjectures without perusing the averments made therein.

The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the appeal. It pointed out that the appellant was specifically named in the FIR and that the investigation had yielded the Facebook post with the objectionable content. The prosecution witnesses had supported the allegations in their statements. At the charge-framing stage, it was submitted, the court need only examine whether a prima facie case exists and is not required to conduct a mini-trial.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Santosh Rai examined the material on record and restated the settled legal position on the scope of inquiry at the stage of framing charges or considering a discharge application.

The court noted that, on a prima facie perusal, the impugned remarks appeared to be directed against a particular community belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The Facebook post had been collected during investigation and placed before the trial court. The prosecution witnesses had specifically mentioned the abusive words, filling the gap left by the FIR's omission of those words.

On the seven-day delay in lodging the FIR, the court did not treat it as fatal at the charge-framing stage. The FIR specifically named the appellant, and the investigation had gathered corroborating material.

The court drew on three Supreme Court decisions to articulate the correct standard. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2013) 11 SCC 476, the Supreme Court had held that while framing charges, the court must evaluate materials to see whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed, but it is not required to assess the probative value of those materials. A charge is justified even on grave suspicion that is not properly explained.

In Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, (2006) 4 SCC 51, the Supreme Court, drawing on State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) SCC (Cri) 533, had said that at the initial stage the court is not required to weigh whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. A strong suspicion giving rise to a ground for presuming the accused has committed an offence is sufficient; the standard for conviction is not applied at this stage.

In Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 657, the Supreme Court had restated that the judge has the power to sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case is made out, but cannot conduct a roving inquiry. Where grave suspicion is not properly explained, framing of charge is warranted. If two views are equally possible and the material gives rise only to suspicion, not grave suspicion, the accused may be discharged; but where the court can form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, framing of charge is proper.

Applying these principles, Justice Santosh Rai held that the trial court had correctly assessed the situation. The Facebook post, the footage on record, and the statements of prosecution witnesses together disclosed a prima facie case. The discharge application had not been rejected on surmises; the material on record justified the framing of charges.

The court observed that “the impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity.”

Outcome

The criminal appeal was dismissed. Justice Santosh Rai directed the Registrar (Compliance) to serve a copy of the order by fax or e-mail to the trial court through the District and Sessions Judge concerned within one week.

The Session Case before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hamirpur will now proceed to trial on the charges framed under Section 352 BNS, Section 66 of the IT Act, and Section 3(1)Dha of the SC/ST Act.