Penal Code, 1860 – ss.153A and 505(1)(c) – Brutal attack on non-tribals in State of Meghalaya with iron rods and sticks – Attackers allegedly belonged to tribal community of Meghalaya – Facebook post uploaded by Appellant, alleged to be intentionally made for promoting class / community hatred between tribals and non-tribals in the State – Prima facie case made out u/ss.153A and 505(1)(c) or not – Held: Close scrutiny of the Facebook post uploaded by appellant indicate that her agony was directed against the apathy shown by the CM, Meghalaya, DGP and the DorbarShnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals – The Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya – There was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class / community hatred – As no attempt was made by the Appellant to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence, the basic ingredients of offence u/ss.153A and 505(1)(c) not made out – Fervent plea made by Appellant for protection of non-tribals living in the State of Meghalaya and for their equality cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be categorized as hate speech – It was a call for justice - for action according to law, which every citizen has a right to expect and articulate – Disapprobation of governmental inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between different communities – Free speech of the citizens cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order – No case made out against Appellant for offences u/ss.153A and 505(1)(c). s. 439 – Bail – Grant of, by High Court – Observations of the High Court in succession of orders that the counsel for the parties “do not press for a further reasoned order” – Correctness of – Held: Observations of the High Court is disapproved – Consent of partiescannot obviate the duty of the High Court to apply a judicial mind andindicate its reasons why it has either granted or refused bail – Outcomeof the application has a significant bearing on the liberty of the accusedon one hand as well as the public interest in the due enforcement ofcriminal justice on the other. Penal Code, 1860 – ss.153A & 505 – Ingredients of s.153Avis-a-vis that of s.505(2) – Similarities and difference between thetwo offences – Held: Mens rea is a necessary ingredient for offenceu/s.153A and s.505(2) – Common factor of both the sections beingpromotion of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between differentreligious or racial or linguistics or religious groups or castes orcommunities, it is necessary that at least two such groups orcommunities should be involved – Merely inciting the feelings ofone community or group without any reference to any othercommunity or group cannot attract any of the two sections –However, publication of words or representation is sine qua non u/s.505 – Hate Speech. FIR – Quashing of – Held: Where allegations made in theFIR or the complaint, even if they are taken on their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offenceor make out a case against the accused, the FIR is liable to bequashed.