Merely Supporting Pakistan Sans Referring To Any Incident Or India Doesn't Attract S. 152 BNS: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this observation while granting bail to an 18-year-old boy [Riyaz], booked under Sections 152, 196 BNS for allegedly posting an Instagram story that read:

“Chahe jo ho jai sport to bas ..... Pakistan ka karenge”

His counsel submitted that the post in question did not lower the dignity and sovereignty of the country, as neither the Indian Flag nor its name or any photo was posted with showed any disrespect to the country.

It was further contended that merely supporting a country, even if the country is an enemy to the country of India, will not attract the ingredients of Section 152 BNS.

He further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case and therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation.

On the other hand, the AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that such a post of the applicant through the Instagram ID encourages separatism and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail

Against the backdrop of these submissions, Justice Deshwal noted that the applicant had not posted anything that showed disrespect towards India.

He added that merely showing support to Pakistan without referring to any incident or mentioning the name of India will not prima facie attract the offence of endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

The single judge also referred to the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362 to note that liberty of thought and expression is one of the cornerstone ideals of our Constitution.

Furthermore, the High Court underscored that since Section 152 BNS is a newly introduced provision with stringent punishment, it must be invoked with care.

“…before invoking the Section 152 BNS, reasonable care and standards of reasonable person should be adopted as spoken words or posts on social media is also covered by the liberty of freedom of speech and expression, which should not be narrowly construed unless it is of such nature which effect the sovereignty and integrity of a country or encourages separatism,” the bench added.

It added that for attracting this provision, there must be a purpose by spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, the electronic communication to promote secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities or encourage feelings of separating activities or endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

The single judge also noted that while the alleged post could potentially come within the ambit of Section 196 BNS (promoting enmity), however, even for that offence to apply, a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS is required before registration of FIR (as held in Imran Pratapgarhi case), which, the court added, was not conducted in the present case.

Thus, considering the age of the applicant, absence of criminal history, and the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed, the Court granted him bail.

The accused has been directed not to post any material on social media which could create disharmony among citizens of India.