Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Booked For Criticising Government On Social Media | Criticism Not Against Country | Criminal History Alone No Ground To Deny Bail
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Uttar Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan has granted anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged online remarks against government action. The Court issued directions to release the applicant on anticipatory bail, observing that no exceptional circumstances had been presented to warrant a denial of bail. The judgment clarified that the allegations stemmed from a social media post critical of the government, and did not meet the threshold of offenses warranting custody or the denial of anticipatory relief.
The present matter pertains to an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed by Azaz Ahmad seeking anticipatory bail in relation to Case Crime No. 368 of 2025 registered at Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly. The alleged offenses include Sections 353(3) and 152 of the BNSS. The application came before the High Court for adjudication on the question of granting anticipatory bail amidst ongoing investigation.
The allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) were based on purported remarks made by the applicant on social media. According to the FIR, the applicant made incorrect statements that were critical of government action. It was claimed that these remarks were injurious in nature and opposed the interest of the State. The FIR formed the basis of initiating criminal proceedings against the applicant.
During the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at best, the alleged conduct may fall within the scope of Section 353 of the BNSS, which pertains to obstructing public servants and is punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. The counsel contended that the more serious charge under Section 152 of the BNSS, which concerns acts against the State, was not applicable in the present case.
The applicant’s counsel argued that criticizing the government does not, in itself, amount to an act against the country. The applicant claimed to be innocent and submitted that the allegations were baseless and unfounded. It was asserted that no prima facie case was made out, and the applicant’s liberty should not be curtailed in the absence of clear and specific evidence linking him to the alleged offense.
Further, it was stated that the applicant had a genuine apprehension of arrest and that the anticipatory bail was necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship and violation of personal liberty. The application also disclosed that the applicant had criminal antecedents, which were explained in paragraph 12 of the affidavit submitted in support of the bail application.
The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It was submitted that the matter was under investigation and the authenticity and source of the social media post were being verified. The AGA stated that further details had been called for to examine the implications of the applicant’s actions.
However, the AGA did not present any arguments or material to suggest that the alleged act had caused significant societal harm. It was not shown that the nature of the allegations was so grave as to warrant custodial interrogation or to deny anticipatory relief.
The AGA did not argue that the applicant’s release on bail would interfere with the free and fair conduct of investigation. No evidence was submitted to indicate any risk of the applicant tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or misusing the liberty granted by the Court.
The Court noted that while the AGA did state the applicant’s criminal antecedents, no information was presented regarding prior instances where the applicant had tried to evade the process of law or had engaged in obstruction of justice.
The Court recorded that the allegations in the FIR were based on remarks made on social media that were critical of governmental action. It was "Criticizing the government by itself cannot be treated as against the country." The Court found that even if the statements attributed to the applicant were taken at face value, they did not justify invoking Section 152 of the BNSS.
"It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large." The Court further recorded, "It is not shown that act causes harm to the society." The Bench expressed that the accusations appeared to arise from a dispute among individuals rather than a larger public threat.
The Court noted that the applicant was not shown to be a person of such a nature that his release on bail would endanger the investigation or public order. "No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence."
The Court cited precedent in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, observing in paragraph 30: "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."
Referring to Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Court noted: "Pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail."
The Bench recorded, "It is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial." The Court further stated, "No exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent."
"It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused." The Court held that no material particulars or circumstances were shown to suggest that the applicant would flee from justice or disrupt the trial process.
The Court granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions. It directed: "In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order." The applicant was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in like amount.
The Court imposed multiple conditions: "The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required." It was also directed that the applicant "shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer."
The Court mandated that the applicant "shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned." Any change in residential address was to be informed in writing to the court and investigating officer.
The order included instructions for the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and to ensure that he does not "obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police."
Further, it directed that "the applicant shall maintain law and order," and "shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences." It was also stated: "Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law."
The Court concluded by stating: "In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Atul Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Rupak Chaubey, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Azaz Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:100174
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4819 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram D. Chauhan
