Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hailing Another Country Without Denouncing Motherland Not Sedition: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ Social Media Post Case
|The Court noted that such an act does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that merely raising words in favour of another country, without denouncing one’s motherland or inciting violence, does not amount to the offence of sedition under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS), corresponding to Section 124A of the IPC.
The Court granted bail to a man accused of sharing an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad.”
Deciding the matter, Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “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.”
Advocate Anubhav Chopra represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Lokinder Kuthleria represented the respondents.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered under Section 152 of the BNS. According to the prosecution, the petitioner allegedly shared an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the words “Pakistan Zindabad.” The act was treated as inflammatory and prejudicial to national interest. As a consequence, the petitioner surrendered and was arrested the same day.
The State opposed bail, submitting that given the current strained relations between India and Pakistan, writing “Pakistan Zindabad” was anti-national.
The petitioner, a fruit vendor, contended that he was illiterate and incapable of operating social media, and that his account was managed by his son. He alleged false implication by the informant, who had access to his mobile phone. The petitioner had been in custody since June 8, 2025.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR did not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 152 BNS, as there was no allegation of incitement of hatred or disharmony between groups.
Court’s Observation
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ajwarv. Waseem & Anr. and Ramratan v. State of M.P. reiterating that bail must be considered on factors such as the seriousness of the accusations, the role of the accused, and the need to balance personal liberty with the interests of justice. It further stated that any conditions imposed should be reasonable and aimed at securing the presence of the accused during trial while preventing misuse of liberty.
Justice Kainthla noted that sedition applies only when words tend to incite violence or disturb public order. Citing Balwant Singh, he remarked that, “The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence.” He further noted that merely raising slogans without resulting in disturbance of law and order does not constitute sedition.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the bail petition, directing the petitioner’s release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety. Conditions imposed include regular attendance before the trial court, non-intimidation of witnesses, surrender of passport, and disclosure of mobile and social media details.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla concluded, “Prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody.”
Cause Title: Suleman v. State of Himachal Pradesh (N.C 2025:HHC:27866)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anubhav Chopra
Respondent: Lokinder Kutlheria - Additional Advocate General, Prashant Sen, Ajit Sharma and Sunena Chandhari, Deputy Advocates General