Posts against BJP leaders: Stopped at Mumbai airport, UK-based YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil seeks quashing of LOC & FIR | Mumbai News

UK-based YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil.

Mumbai: Bombay HC on Thursday sought the state’s reply to a petition by UK-based doctor and YouTuber Sangram Patil, who has sought quashing of an FIR and a lookout circular (LOC) against him by Mumbai police for posts on Facebook against some BJP leaders.Justice Ashwin Bhobe was hearing a plea by Patil, who sought a stay on further investigations and coercive action pending hearing of his petition. The Dec 18 FIR was filed by N M Joshi Marg police under Section 353(2) of BNS, which criminalises making or circulating a statement containing false information, rumour, alarming news with intent to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups, caste or communities. Within a few days, an LOC was issued. The petition said on Jan 10, Patil and his wife were intercepted at Mumbai airport at 2am. He was taken to the crime branch unit 3 office at N M Joshi Marg and questioned for 14 hours in connection with a complaint by Nikhil Bhamre, social media coordinator of BJP, regarding two posts. He was later allowed to go. On Jan 16, Patil appeared before police to record his statement. On Jan 19, he was stopped from leaving for UK, citing the LOC. The petition said the FIR refers to two posts on Dec 14 against main BJP leaders. While the first was from his account, the second was not posted by him, it said. “The petitioner cannot be assigned any responsibility for what others have posted on their wall.” The post shared by Patil from his handle “mentions a single line” and “the statement is about the silence of party followers and paid trolls”, it said. It does not mention the full name of any BJP leader. The complaint also does not specify which BJP leader has been defamed, said the petition. The plea said the FIR does not reproduce the alleged posts in their entirety, nor states how ingredients of Section 353 (2) are disclosed. It is based on posts which constitute “statement of facts and expressions of free speech” and the allegations “stem from political disagreement”, it said. The petition said Patil is being harassed “to teach a lesson to other people” and police “mechanically registered” the FIR. It said he may lose his job if he does not return to the UK. Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola said Patil came on his own from the UK and was not aware of the registration of the FIR. Advocate general Milind Sathe said, “There is some connection to other posts which is similar to this and we think that he is connected with that. He is not cooperating.” Justice Bhobe posted the next hearing for Feb 4.