The Allahabad High Court, on June 27, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to Azaz Ahmad, who was booked under Sections 353(3) and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly posting content on social media that questioned government responsibility following the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir.
The single-judge bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan allowed the bail application after observing that there was no material to show that Ahmad’s actions had caused harm to society or could obstruct the investigation.
"It is not shown that the act causes harm to society or has an impact on society at large. No concern was raised that granting bail would affect a free, fair, or full investigation," the Court noted.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by a police sub-inspector at Izzatnagar Police Station, Bareilly, claiming that during a period of national mourning, Azaz Ahmad, identified as District President of Mulayam Singh Youth Brigade, had made a viral social media post that allegedly stirred communal emotions.
The post read:
"नाम पूछ कर गोली मारी, बाला चूरन बेचना बन्द करो असली मुद्दे पर आओ की हमला हुआ जिम्मेदारी किसकी थी"
(Translation: Stop selling the 'shot after asking the name' churan, come to the real issue — who was responsible for the attack)
Read also:- Madras High Court Calls for Rule Reform to Regulate Import of Ayurvedic Drugs
While the prosecution alleged that the post could incite disharmony, the applicant’s counsel, Advocate Atul Pandey, argued that mere criticism of government policy cannot be termed anti-national. He emphasized that at most, the case may attract Section 353 of BNS, which carries a punishment of less than seven years, and no serious offence under Section 152 BNS could be made out.
The State, represented by AGA Rupak Chaubey, opposed the plea but failed to present any evidence that bail would jeopardize the investigation or provoke social unrest.
“No material or concern has been shown that the accused might tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Also, no instance was cited that the applicant evaded law earlier,” stated the Court.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Rules Gram Panchayat Cannot Levy Property Tax in KIADB Notified Industrial Areas
The Court relied on previous Supreme Court judgments including Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) and Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. (2020), which held that criminal history alone should not be a ground to deny bail unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
Ultimately, the Court held:
"If the accused is otherwise found entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history. No exceptional circumstances have been shown to deny bail."
The anticipatory bail was granted until the filing of the charge sheet with strict conditions including cooperation with the investigation, regular presence during trial, and no attempts to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Case title: Azaz Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025