Advocating For An End To Hostilities Between India & Pakistan Does Not Amount To Sedition: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Court was considering a petition seeking regular bail in a case registered under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the offence of sedition under the erstwhile Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations arose from social media content and digital material allegedly shared by the petitioner, which the prosecution claimed reflected anti-national activity.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, after examining the material placed on record, observed: “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 was also perused by me. Prima facie, they show that the petitioner chatted with someone, and both of them criticised the hostilities between India and Pakistan. They advocated that all people, irrespective of their religion, should stay together, and that the war serves no fruitful purpose. It is difficult to see how a desire to end the hostilities and a return to peace can amount to sedition”.

Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Suri appeared for the petitioner, while Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, appeared for the State.

Background

The prosecution's case was premised on information received by the police that the petitioner had uploaded photographs and videos on social media platforms allegedly depicting prohibited weapons and symbols. It was further alleged that the petitioner had interacted with individuals across the border and had shared views criticising Operation Sindoor and supporting peace between communities.

During the investigation, the police seized the petitioner’s mobile phone and subjected it to forensic examination. However, no prohibited weapons were recovered from the petitioner’s possession. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed, and the petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail.

The State opposed the bail application on the ground that the allegations disclosed grave anti-national activities and that the petitioner’s conduct warranted continued detention.

Court’s Observations

The High Court began by reiterating the settled principles governing the grant of bail, as laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasising that bail decisions must be guided by the nature of the accusations, the severity of the alleged offence, the evidence on record, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the administration of justice.

Turning to the offence alleged, the Court examined the scope of sedition and allied offences, noting that Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, like Section 124A of the IPC, is attracted only where the acts complained of have the intention or tendency to create public disorder or disturb public peace through violence or incitement. Relying on binding precedent, the Court observed that mere criticism of governmental actions, however strongly worded, does not amount to sedition unless accompanied by incitement to violence.

On a perusal of the FIR and the digital material, the Court found no allegation that the petitioner had attempted to incite hatred, disaffection, or contempt towards the Government established by law. The conversations and material relied upon by the prosecution, prima facie, reflected criticism of hostilities between India and Pakistan and a call for peace and unity among people, irrespective of religion. The Court held that such expression could not be equated with sedition.

The Court further noted that no prohibited weapons had been recovered from the petitioner and that the mere posting of images or symbols, without any accompanying act or intent to incite violence or public disorder, was insufficient to attract the offence alleged. Even assuming the prosecution’s claim regarding the raising of certain slogans, the Court observed that settled law holds that casual or isolated slogans, without any resulting disturbance of public order, do not constitute an offence.

The High Court also underscored that there was no material at this stage to show that any person was provoked or influenced towards disaffection or violence by the petitioner’s online posts. The absence of any discernible impact on public order weighed in favour of the petitioner.

Conclusion

In view of the above, the High Court concluded that continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly after the filing of the charge sheet. The Court emphasised that bail cannot be used as a tool for pre-trial punishment and that personal liberty must be curtailed only in accordance with law and established principles.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail petition and directed the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure his presence during trial and to prevent any interference with the course of justice. The Court clarified that the observations made were limited to the consideration of the bail application and would have no bearing on the merits of the case at trial.

Cause Title: Abhishek v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:98)

Click here to read/download Judgment