Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail In Case Over Alleged Anti-Army, Anti-PM Social Media Posts [Read Order]

Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Farooq Ahmad, who was arrested for allegedly sharing controversial videos on social media, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between mere criticism and content that incites violence or public disorder.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla made crucial observations on the application of sedition and hate speech laws in cases involving the sharing of social media content.

The court addressed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1473 of 2025, filed by Farooq Ahmad seeking regular bail in FIR No. 102 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 152, 196, and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Addressing the specific allegations against the petitioner, the court noted, “The informant made a complaint that the petitioner had shared anti-Nation, anti-Army, anti-Hindu, and anti-Prime Minister videos, which had hurt the sentiments of common people. One video contains insulting comments that affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country.”

While referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Balwant Singh v. State of H.P., the court reiterated the legal standards for sedition and hate speech offences, stating, “Only such activities which are intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence are rendered penal. The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence.”

In a significant observation, the court held, “There is no averment in the status report that any person, including the informant, was incited to resort to violence. The video recordings of the Facebook posts were played in court. They may be in bad taste, but they do not tend to incite any person to violence or create disturbance in public peace.”

The court emphasized the need for applying proper legal standards when evaluating social media content, citing established Supreme Court precedents that require proof of actual incitement to violence or public disorder, rather than merely offensive content.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the investigation was complete and that no fruitful purpose would be served by continued detention. The State, however, opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations.

The court granted bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000/- and compliance with conditions including: not intimidating witnesses, attending all hearings, surrendering his passport, and providing his mobile number and social media account details to the police and court.

Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate, appeared for the Petitioner, and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

[Read Order]