The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a street vendor who was accused of sedition under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) for allegedly sharing a Facebook post with the words “Pakistan Zindabad.” A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that “merely posting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, without denouncing India, was not seditious,” and noted that the complaint did not allege any intention to bring hatred or discontent toward the government established by law in India.
The petitioner, a poor and illiterate fruit vendor, had allegedly shared an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the phrase “Pakistan Zindabad,” which was deemed inflammatory. His counsel contended that the petitioner, being illiterate, could not operate social media, and that the Facebook account was managed by his son. It was further argued that the informant had access to the petitioner’s mobile phone and had shared the controversial content.
The court heard that the petitioner had been in custody since June 8, 2025, and sought regular bail. The petition was opposed by the Additional Advocate General, who highlighted the strained India-Pakistan relations at the time of the post and claimed that “writing Pakistan Zindabad was anti-national.”
In its analysis, the Court referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768, which held that while considering bail, courts must weigh “the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime was alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused,” among other factors. The court also relied on Vinod Dua v. Union of India, (2023) 14 SCC 286, noting that sedition laws “applied to such activities which were intended, or which tend to create disorder or disturbance of the public peace.”
Citing Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156, the Court emphasized that “the intention of causing disorder or inciting people to violence was the sine qua non of the offence.” The bench noted that there was no evidence suggesting that the petitioner intended to incite hatred or public disorder, and that hailing another country without denouncing India did not amount to sedition.
Given that the police had seized the electronic device and filed the charge sheet, the Court found no need for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount.
(With inputs from SCC Online)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
