Allahabad High Court Stays Arrest Of Man Over Morphed Photo Showing Ex-CM Akhilesh Yadav With Espionage Case Accused

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh passed the interim order while hearing a plea file by accused-Arun Kumar seeking quashing of the FIR as well as protection from arrest.

The FIR in question was registered in August this year under Sections 147, 196, 197, 353 of the BNS, Section 67 IT Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

It was lodged pursuant to an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged “on the basis of wrong and concocted facts”.

His counsel submitted that the photograph in question was originally uploaded through the Twitter handle of one Dr. Ajay Alok on May 20, 2025, showing Akhilesh Yadav along with one Jyoti Malhotra, who is alleged to be connected with the officials of Pakistan by the Indian Media and Intelligence Agencies..

It was contended that believing the post to be true, the petitioner 'shocked' and 'in anguish', shared it on his Twitter account blaming the involvement of the Samajwadi Party leader with 'anti-national' people.

However, it was further submitted, after coming to know of its veracity, the petitioner immediately deleted the post from his account.

It was his further case that the ingredients of Section 147, 196, 197, 353 of BNS, Section 67 of IT Act are not made out against him.

It was also submitted that the publication on his public Twitter handle cannot be said to be waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the Government of India or promoting enmity between different groups and it also cannot be said to be prejudicial in any manner to the national integration.

Further, the Court was told that no incident had been reported as a consequence of the publication, which had already been deleted. The petitioner maintained that the FIR was politically motivated and expressed readiness to cooperate in the investigation.

Opposing the plea, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that the FIR had rightly been lodged in accordance with the Magistrate's order and that investigation was ongoing for collection of evidence.

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the matter required consideration. It issued notice to respondent no. 4 and granted four weeks' time for filing a counter-affidavit, with two weeks thereafter for rejoinder.

Importantly, the Court directed that till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the impugned FIR unless any incriminating material is found against the petitioner during investigation and subject to cooperation by the petitioner, failing which he will not be entitled for any benefit of this order.