High Court grants bail to man in ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ sloganeering case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man arrested for allegedly raising the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” during the India-Pakistan War. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj held that “the veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial court.”

The order came after Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the accused had been in custody for six months and 11 days in a case registered on May 9 under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Pinjore police station. He was arrested on May 10, and his bail plea was rejected by Panchkula Additional Sessions Judge on August 13 before he approached the High Court.

The Bench observed that that the FIR was based on a complaint alleging that Ameen raised the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” at a time “when the war was going on between India and Pakistan” and had thereby “committed an act of treason against the country.”

Appearing before the Bench on the petitioner’s behalf, senior advocate Kshitij Sharma, along with counsel Shobit Sharma and Pragun Goyal argued that “he had been falsely prosecuted,” that “the offence under Section 152 of BNS – dealing with that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India – is not even made out on reading the allegations made in the FIR.”

Opposing bail, the State submitted that specific allegations had been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR “regarding raising the slogan ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ during the operation when both the countries were at war”. The Bench was told that “the allegations made were duly established during the investigation.” It added that the challan had been presented but the charges were yet to be framed.

After examining the record and hearing rival contentions, the Bench observed that the petitioner had no other criminal involvement, the investigation was complete, and the trial was yet to begin. “The argument raised regarding the maintainability of the FIR for the offence under Section 152 of BNS would be a subject matter of the trial and, thus, this court would refrain from commenting anything on the merits of the case,” Justice Bhardwaj held.

Finding grounds to allow bail, the court concluded: “Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail.”