Key Points

A single-judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla took note of the submission that the petitioner-accused was “falsely implicated” and had no direct role in posting the controversial content, as the Facebook account was created by his son, and the informant had access to his mobile phone and shared the objectionable reel.

An FIR was registered against Suleman, who described himself as “a poor and illiterate street vendor”, at the Paonta Sahib Police Station in Sirmour district under Section 152 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

In its judgment, Justice Kainthla pointed out that sedition-like offences under BNS correspond to Section 124A of the IPC that was meant to prevent actions that “have the tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order.”

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, citing an apex court judgment, said, “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.” It observed that there was no averment in the complaint that hatred or discontent was brought towards the government established by law in India.

“The averments show that the words 'Pakistan Zindabad' were mentioned in the post. 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,” said Justice Kainthla, observing that prima facie, there was insufficient material to connect the accused with the commission of a crime.

“The police have filed the chargesheet, and there is nothing to show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner (accused) is necessary. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody,” added Justice Kainthla.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted regular bail to Suleman in the sum of Rs 50,000, along with a surety of the same amount, subject to certain conditions.

It clarified that the observations in the judgment pertain only to the disposal of the bail petition and will have no bearing on the merits of the case.

- IANS