'Act Not Harming Society': Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail In Case Over Alleged Post Questioning Govt After Pahalgam Attack

While allowing the bail plea, a bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan observed that the AGA was not able to show that granting him the relief will have an impact on society at large, or that if granted bail, any prejudice would be caused to a free, fair and full investigation.

Briefly put, the FIR against the applicant was lodged by a police sub-inspector, who claimed that while the atmosphere in the city was mourning the deaths of innocent civilians killed in the terrorist attack, a certain post had gone viral on social media.

The post allegedly stated: "नाम पूछ कर गोली मारी, बाला चूरन बेचना बन्द करो असली मुद्दे पर आओ की हमला हुआ जिम्मेदारी किसकी थी" with the name and photo of Accused, identified as the District President, Mulayam Singh Youth Brigade, Bareilly. [Translation : Stop selling the 'shot after asking the name' churan, come to the real issue that who was responsible for the attack]

The FIR further alleged that the post hurt communal sentiments and could incite discord in society, especially at a time when people were coming together for candle marches and peace appeals.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Atul Pandey, argued that the case, at best, falls under Section 353 BNS, which is punishable by imprisonment below seven years. He further contended that mere criticism of government action cannot be treated as an act against the country.

He submitted that the applicant is innocent, has no criminal intent, and that no prima facie case was made out against him.

On the other hand, the AGA Rupak Chaubey opposed the plea, stating that since the alleged post had been denied by the applicant, its details were being collected.

However, noting that no material was placed to show that the act had caused harm to society at large, or that granting anticipatory bail would prejudice the investigation or encourage tampering with evidence, the Court granted him bail till the filing of the charge sheet.

“In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent,” the Court observed in its order.

Case title: Azaz Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 240

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 240

Click Here To Read/Download Order