Merely Posting 'Pakistan Zindabad' On Facebook Without Denouncing India Is Not Sedition U/S 152 BNS: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a street vendor who was accused of sharing an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad” on Facebook. 

The Court remarked that merely praising another country without speaking against India does not amount to sedition as it does not encourage rebellion, violence, or separatist activities.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated that: “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. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.”

The petitioner was accused of sharing an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the words 'Pakistan Zindabad'. The prosecution contended that this post was inflammatory and against the interests of the nation.

The petitioner contended that he is a poor, illiterate street vendor who is running a small fruit cart outside the informant's shop. He is unable to operate a social media platform. His Facebook account was created by his son. The informant had access to his mobile phone and shared the controversial reel as there was a money-related issue between the two.

The petitioner further contended that he was innocent and falsely implicated. The allegations in the F.I.R. do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 152 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. 

In response, the state contended that the petition should be dismissed as when the post was made, the relationship between India and Pakistan was strained, and writing Pakistan Zindabad was anti-national.

The Court observed that there was nothing in the complaint which showed that there was any hatred or discontent brought towards the government of India.

The Court further remarked that the electronic device is already seized, and the chargesheet doesn't show that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

Thus, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody.

Case Name: Suleman V/s State of H.P.

Case No.: Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1647 of 2025

Date of Decision: 19.08.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Lokinder Kutlheria, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Prashant Sen, Mr Ajit Sharma and Ms. Sunena Chandhari, Deputy Advocates General.

Click Here To Read/Download Order