Introduction
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has recently overturned a criminal case from six years ago involving a man accused of sending a WhatsApp message during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The message reportedly claimed the detection of two COVID-19 cases in a Jammu locality, leading to allegations of creating public panic.
Court’s Findings
Presiding over the case, Justice MA Chowdhary clarified that the act of spreading panic does not inherently fulfill the criteria set under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In the case of Sandeep Kumar Bhat V/s UT of J&K, the court found no evidence suggesting that the circulated message was intended to incite enmity or hatred among any sections of society.
Justice Chowdhary stated, “The allegation against the petitioner is only that he circulated a message regarding detection of two Covid-19 positive cases in a particular locality, which allegedly created panic. There is no allegation that the message was intended to create, or was likely to create, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between any two groups based on religion, caste, community, language or any other ground contemplated under Section 505(2) IPC.”
Details of the Case
The case involved Sandeep Kumar Bhat, who was accused of forwarding a message in a WhatsApp group on March 28, 2020. This message stated that two positive COVID-19 cases had been identified in Migrant Colony, Jagti, Nagrota. The message purportedly led to public alarm, prompting legal action against Bhat under Section 505(2) of the IPC.
This provision, which has since been replaced by Section 353, BNS, addresses the criminal liability of making or circulating statements likely to incite hostility among communities based on religion, race, or language, among other factors.
More Read
High Court’s Decision
On August 7, the High Court observed that although the FIR was filed in March 2020, no conclusive investigation report had been submitted. The court criticized the authorities for the prolonged delay without a justified reason.
Justice Chowdhary emphasized that the prosecution did not provide any evidence indicating that Bhat had any intent to sow discord between different groups. Additionally, there was no proof that the information shared by Bhat was false. As such, the court determined that the allegations in the FIR, even if fully accepted, did not constitute an offense under Section 505(2) IPC.
The court concluded that allowing the case to continue without concrete evidence would constitute an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the FIR against Bhat was quashed. Justice Chowdhary remarked, “Permitting the investigation to continue indefinitely, despite the absence of material disclosing the commission of the alleged offence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.”
More Read
Legal Representation
Advocate Ayushman Kotwal represented Sandeep Kumar Bhat, while Advocate Shazia Asaf and Deputy Advocate General PD Singh appeared for the Jammu and Kashmir administration.
