Case Name: Abhishek v. state of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Cr.MP (MP) no.2763 of 2025
Court : High court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Date of decision:1 January 2026
Quorum : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Facts of case
The present case arose from FIR No.71 of 2025 dated 28 May 2025 registered at police station Dehra, district Kangra, under section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 which corresponds to the offence of sedition under the erstwhile section 124A of the IPC.
The police claimed that during routine patrolling they received secret information that the petitioner had uploaded photographs & videos on Facebook showing prohibited weapons, the Pakistani flag & had expressed views critical of operation sindoor while supporting Khalistan. The petitioner`s residence was searched however no prohibited weapons or illegal material were recovered. His mobile phone was seized and sent for forensic examination. After investigation the charge sheet was filed.
The petitioner filed the present bail application contending that he had been falsely implicated that his social media posts did not amount to sedition that investigation was complete and therefore continued custody was unnecessary and unjustified.
Issues
Whether the acts attributed to the petitioner satisfy the legal ingredients of section 152 of BNS?
Whether continued custody of the petitioner was justified after filing of the charge sheet?
Whether bail should be granted in light of constitutional principles governing personal liberty?
Relevant legal provisions
Section 153, BNS 2023
Article 19 (1)(a) and Article 21, constitution on India
Bail principles as laid down in pinki v. state of U.P (2025),gudikanti narasimhulu (1978),kalyan Chandra sarkar (2004)
Sedition jurisprudence; kedar nath singh v. state of Bihar (1962),vinod Dua v. U.O.I (2021)
Arguments of petitioner
The petitioner argued that the allegation does not constitute sedition because there was no incitement to violence, rebellion or public disorder. The petitioner merely expressed views opposing war and advocated peace. No prohibited weapons were recovered with investigation complete and charge sheet filed continued incarceration would amount to pre trail punishment, violating article 21.
Arguments of respondent
The state opposed bail by alleging that the petitioner engaged in anti-national activities, maintained contact with Pakistani nationals and the offence was of grave nature affecting national security.
Judicial Analysis
The court examined the scope of section 152 BNS and observed that it must be interpreted in the same manner as section 124A IPC. Relying heavily on Vinod dua v. U.O.I LL 2021 SC 266 (Supreme Court of India, decided 3 June 2021) and Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955 the court reiterated that sedition is attracted only when speech incites violence or trends to create public disorder. Mere criticism of government policies or advocacy of peace cannot be criminalized.
After examining the electronic material, the court found that petitioner chats and posts primarily expressed opposition to war and a desire for harmony. Such expression, though politically sensitive, is protected by article 19(1)(a). The court emphasized that freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy and criminal law cannot be used to suppress dissent.
Even assuming the petitioner raised slogans of Khalistan zindabad the court applied the ratio of Balwant Singh v. state of H.P which held that casual slogans without any intent or tendency to disturb public order do not constitute an offence.
On the question of bail, the court relied on Pinki vs. State of UP 2025 INSC 482 and reaffirmed that bail jurisprudence is rooted under article 21 and that detention before conviction should be an exception not the rule. Such Investigation was complete and trial was yet to commence, the court found no justification to further custody.
Judgment
The High Court allowed the bail application and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail of ₹50,000 with conditions. It held that:
- No prima facie case of sedition was made out.
- The petitioner’s conduct was protected speech.
- Continued detention would violate constitutional liberty.
Conclusion
This judgment stands as an important milestone in post-BNS constitutional interpretation. By carefully examining the limits of section 152 of the BNS through the lens of settled supreme court jurisprudence, the high court reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be allowed to intrude upon the domain of democratic dissent. The court’s approach reflects a conscious effort to prevent the transformation of sedition law into a tool for suppressing unpopular opinions or ideological disagreement. At the same time, the decision preserves the delicate balance between safeguarding national security and protecting individual liberty by granting bail and rejecting a mechanical application of sedition. The court upheld the foundation promise of the constitution that liberty is not to be sacrificed at the altar of vague allegations. This case therefore contributes significantly to the evolving constitutional discourse on free speech, state power, and the role of courts in protecting civil liberties in contemporary India.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: NISHTHA JAIN
