The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man booked under charges of sedition and other offences, making important observations on the meaning of sedition and the central role of intent in such cases. The court held that expressing a desire for peace or criticising ongoing hostilities between India and Pakistan cannot, by itself, be treated as an act of sedition.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla passed the order while granting bail to Abhishek Singh Bhardwaj, who had been arrested after an FIR was registered against him on May 28, 2025, at Dehra in Kangra district. The case was initiated following a tip-off alleging that Bhardwaj had uploaded photographs and videos of prohibited weapons, the Pakistani flag, and slogans linked to Khalistan on Facebook.
During the course of the investigation, police searched the accused’s residence but did not recover any prohibited weapons or incriminating material. The only item seized was his mobile phone. Data extracted from the device revealed chats between Bhardwaj and a Pakistani national, Naiz Khan, in which Bhardwaj had expressed criticism of Operation Sindoor and commented on the state of relations between India and Pakistan.
Referring to Section 152 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which corresponds to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court reiterated that sedition is not attracted merely by critical or unpopular opinions. The court relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Vinod Dua v. Union of India and Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, to emphasise that the offence of sedition applies only when words or actions are intended, or have a clear tendency, to incite violence or create public disorder.
In a key observation, the court noted that the material on record showed that the petitioner had engaged in conversations criticising the hostilities between India and Pakistan and had expressed the view that people of all religions should live together peacefully. The judge observed that the chats suggested an advocacy for peace and harmony and questioned how such views could be construed as sedition. The court stated that it was difficult to see how a desire to end hostilities and return to peace could amount to an offence against the state.
On the allegation that Bhardwaj had raised or promoted slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabad,” the court held that the mere posting of a slogan, without the intention or tendency to disturb public order, does not constitute a criminal offence. Justice Kainthla further noted that no such slogan could actually be found in the data extracted from the accused’s device, weakening the prosecution’s claim.
The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Balwant Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which held that provisions such as Section 153A of the IPC are attracted only when speech or conduct is intended to incite public disorder or communal disharmony.
While granting bail, the High Court underscored that bail provisions cannot be used as a tool to punish an accused person before guilt is established. The judge observed that the FIR did not contain any allegation of hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the Government of India, further supporting the case for bail.
Bhardwaj was granted bail on the execution of a personal bond of ₹50,000, subject to several conditions. These include not intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence, mandatory appearance at all court hearings, not changing his residence for more than seven days without informing the police and the court, surrendering his passport if he possesses one, and disclosing his mobile number and social media account details. He is also required to inform authorities of any change in contact information or social media accounts within five days.
The court made it clear that any violation of these conditions would give the prosecution the liberty to seek cancellation of bail, reinforcing that the relief granted was conditional and subject to strict compliance.
