Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by a man accused of being a separatist for forwarding a post regarding ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, the Single Judge Bench of Santosh Rai, J., allowed the application, holding that merely posting a message supporting any country would not attract the ingredients of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).
Background
The accused was arrested under Section 152 of the BNS for forwarding a post regarding ‘Pakistan Zindabad’. It was not posted/circulated anywhere. It was contended that the accused had no criminal antecedents, the conclusion of the trial would take sufficiently long, and there was no likelihood of the accused fleeing from the course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.
The State contended that the accused was a separatist and had committed this type of offence previously, but had no criminal history. The State also contended that the accused had commented on a Pakistani person’s post.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that the State had not submitted any evidence regarding whether the accused had made any statement that was against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The State admitted that the accused had not made any such statement.
The Court stated that Section 152 of the BNS was a new Section providing stringent punishment; therefore, before invoking it, reasonable care and standards of a reasonable person should be adopted.
“Spoken words or posts on social media are also covered by the liberty of freedom of speech and expression, which should not be narrowly construed unless they are of such a nature that they affect the sovereignty and integrity of a country or encourage separatism.”
The Court explained that to attract Section 152 of the BNS, there must be purposefully spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, or electronic communication promoting secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encouraging feelings of separatist activities, or which endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
Therefore, the Court held that merely posting a message supporting any country may create anger or disharmony among citizens of India and may also be punishable under Section 196 of the BNS, but definitively would not attract the ingredients of Section 152 of the BNS.
In this regard, the Court referred to Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678, wherein it was observed that before registering a case regarding a social media post, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged based on the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.
Considering the uncertainty regarding the conclusion of the trial and the accused’s right to a speedy trial, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court granted bail to the accused. The Court directed that he shall furnish a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The Court further directed that he shall file an undertaking stating that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.
[Sajid Chaudhary v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 21835 of 2025, decided on 25-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Ajay Kumar Pandey and Alok Singh
For the respondent: Government Advocate
