The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted bail to Suleman, a street vendor from Paonta Sahib, who was arrested for sharing an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad”. The court observed that merely hailing another country does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence or public disorder.
Suleman, an illiterate fruit cart vendor, was arrested on June 8, 2025, under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which corresponds to the now-repealed sedition law under the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the Facebook post was inflammatory and against national interest. However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the post was shared without malicious intent and that Suleman’s son managed his social media account.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, citing Supreme Court precedents including Vinod Dua v. Union of India and Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, emphasized that sedition laws apply only when there is a clear intention to incite violence or disturb public order. The court noted, “Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition.” It also referred to Balwant Singh v. State of H.P., where the apex court ruled that the intention to cause disorder is essential for invoking such charges.
Read also:- Supreme Court Announces Changes in Benches and Hearings for August 25, 2025
The police had already filed a chargesheet and seized the mobile phone, which was sent for forensic analysis. The court found no justification for continued custody, stating that the petitioner was not a flight risk and that no further interrogation was needed.
Suleman was released on a bail bond of ₹50,000 with one surety. He has been directed to not influence witnesses, attend all court hearings, and inform authorities before traveling. The court made it clear that any violation of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Ward Formation in Washim Zilla Parishad Elections
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in applying sedition laws, prioritizing freedom of expression unless there is a tangible threat to public order. It also highlights the vulnerability of digitally illiterate individuals in the age of social media.
Title: Suleman vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1647 of 2025
