The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to a man arrested for sharing an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister of India with the words “Pakistan Zindabad.” Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that hailing another country without denouncing one’s own motherland does not constitute the offense of sedition under Section 152 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), as it does not incite rebellion or separatist activities.
Background of the Case
The case originates from F.I.R. No. 119 of 2025, registered on May 27, 2025, at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. The petitioner, Suleman, was booked under Section 152 of the BNS after a complaint was filed against him for a social media post that was deemed inflammatory. The prosecution alleged that Suleman had shared an AI-generated image of the Hon’ble Prime Minister with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad.”
Suleman surrendered to the police on June 8, 2025, and was arrested on the same day. In his bail petition, he contended that he was falsely implicated. He described himself as a “poor, illiterate street vendor” running a fruit cart, who is incapable of operating social media platforms. He claimed his Facebook account was created by his son and that the informant, with whom he had a monetary transaction, had access to his mobile phone and was the one who shared the controversial reel. The petitioner, a resident of Paonta Sahib for 24 years, argued that since his mobile phone had been seized and he had been in custody since June 8, 2025, his continued detention served no fruitful purpose.
The State, in its status report, confirmed the registration of the FIR, the petitioner’s arrest, and the seizure of his mobile phone, which has been sent for forensic analysis. The police filed a charge sheet in the matter on August 6, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Anubhav Chopra, counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He submitted that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 152 of the BNS. He contended, “There is no averment in the application that the petitioner had incited hatred amongst the members of two groups, or that his act was likely to provoke disharmony or feelings of enmity. Writing ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ by itself does not amount to inciting hatred.” He further stated that with the charge sheet already filed, there was no need for continued detention.
Opposing the bail, Mr. Lokinder Kutlheria, Additional Advocate General, submitted that the post was shared at a time when relations between India and Pakistan were strained, and therefore, writing “Pakistan Zindabad” was an anti-national act.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, after considering the submissions, delved into the legal principles governing sedition. The Court noted that Section 152 of the BNS corresponds to the erstwhile Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgment heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021), which reiterated the principles laid down in the landmark Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) case. The Court quoted the Supreme Court, stating that sedition law renders penal “only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.”
The Court also cited Balwant Singh v. State of H.P. (1995), where the Supreme Court held that the “intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC, and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed.” This principle was further reiterated in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007).
Applying these principles to the present case, Justice Kainthla observed that the FIR lacked any averment that the petitioner’s post brought hatred or discontent towards the government established by law. The Court made a crucial observation on the content of the post itself:
“The averments show that the words ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ were mentioned in the post. Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.”
The Court concluded that since the police had already seized the electronic device and filed the chargesheet, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was not necessary, and no fruitful purpose would be served by his continued detention.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the High Court ordered the release of Suleman on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount. The Court imposed several conditions, including that the petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses, shall attend all trial hearings, shall not leave his present address for more than seven days without informing the authorities, and shall surrender his passport, if any.
The Court clarified that “the observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case’s merits.”
