Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a bail application arising out of an FIR alleging that photographs and videos uploaded on Facebook showing prohibited weapons and the flag of Pakistan, along with communications supporting Khalistan and criticising ‘Operation Sindoor’, the main question was whether the allegations made therein under Section 152 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), corresponding to Section 124-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), justified continued detention of the accused. A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., while releasing the accused on bail observed that no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody and that desire to end India-Pakistan hostilities and a return to peace could not amount to sedition
Background:
The police, during patrolling duty on 28-5-2025, received secret information that the accused had uploaded his photographs and videos on Facebook showing prohibited weapons and the flag of Pakistan. The police seized the mobile phone and alleged that the accused had shared information about ‘Operation Sindoor’ with Pakistani nationals and expressed support for Khalistan.
However, the accused contended that these allegations were false, that no illegal substances were recovered from his house, and that he was falsely implicated. The accused’s counsel argued that the allegations did not satisfy the requirements of Section 152 BNS and that the charge sheet had already been filed, making further custody unnecessary. On the other hand, the State opposed the bail plea, asserting that the accused was involved in anti-national activities, was in touch with Pakistani nationals, and that the offence was grave, warranting denial of bail.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314, where the Supreme Court emphasized that bail discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and likelihood of interference with justice. The Court observed that Section 152 BNS corresponds to Section 124-A IPC, and referred to Vinod Dua v. Union of India, (2023) 14 SCC 286, which clarified that only activities intended or tending to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence fall within the ambit of sedition.
The Court noted that there is no averment in the FIR that any hatred or discontent was directed towards the Government established by law in India. The Pen Drive containing the images and the video showed that the accused chatted with someone, and both criticised the hostilities between India and Pakistan. They advocated that all people, irrespective of their religion, should stay together, and that the war served no fruitful purpose. Thus, it was difficult to see how a desire to end the hostilities and a return to peace could amount to sedition.
The Court observed that no prohibited weapon was recovered, and even alleged slogans like ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ were not located from the extracted data. The Court referred to Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214, wherein it was held that casual raising of such slogans without disturbance of public order does not constitute any offence.
The Court emphasized that there was no evidence to show that any person was incited towards disaffection by the alleged Facebook posts. The Court noted that since the charge-sheet was already filed, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the accused in custody who expressed Desire to end India-Pakistan hostilities through Facebook post. The Court observed that the provisions of bail cannot be used to punish a person before the proof of his guilt, and accordingly, released the accused on bail with conditions to ensure attendance at trial and prevent misuse of liberty.
[Abhishek v. State of H.P., 2026 SCC OnLine HP 240, decided on 1-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
