P&H High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused of Shouting 'Pakistan Zindabad' During Indo-Pak War

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man, Ameen, who was arrested for allegedly shouting the slogan ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ during a war between India and Pakistan. The court, presided over by Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, based its decision on the petitioner's period of incarceration and clean criminal record, while explicitly refraining from commenting on the merits of the treason-related charges under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Background of the Case

The case originates from FIR No. 184, registered on May 9, 2025, at Police Station Pinjore, Panchkula. The complaint was filed by Nitish Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner, Ameen, had committed an act of treason by raising the pro-Pakistan slogan while the two countries were at war.

Following the complaint, Ameen was arrested on May 10, 2025, and charged under Sections 152 (Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India) and 197-D of the BNS, 2023. After the investigation was completed and a challan was presented, Ameen's initial bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, on August 13, 2025, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Arguments Presented in Court

Petitioner's Counsel: Senior Advocate Mr. Kshitij Sharma, representing Ameen, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He pointed out that the complainant was the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh in Panchkula, suggesting the FIR was lodged after due deliberation with potential motives.

The core of the petitioner's argument was that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence under Section 152 of the BNS. The counsel cited landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha vs. Union of India and S.G., Vombatkere vs. Union of India , to question the very maintainability of the charge. Further, it was highlighted that the petitioner has no prior criminal history, has been in custody for over six months, and the investigation is already complete.

State's Counsel: Ms. Diya Sodhi, Senior Deputy Advocate General for Haryana, vehemently opposed the bail plea. She contended that there were specific and serious allegations against the petitioner for raising the slogan during a sensitive time of war. She informed the court that the investigation had substantiated these allegations. The State argued that since the challan has only recently been presented and charges are yet to be framed, releasing the petitioner on bail would be premature.

High Court's Reasoning and Decision

After hearing both sides, Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj noted that the petitioner had been incarcerated for 6 months and 11 days as of November 24, 2025, and had no other criminal cases against him.

The Court made a crucial observation, stating, "The argument raised by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner 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."

The judgment emphasized that the truthfulness of the allegations could only be determined after the appreciation of evidence during the trial. The decision to grant bail was based on the following key factors:

* The petitioner has already undergone a significant period of incarceration.

* He has a clean criminal record.

* The investigation is complete, and the challan has been filed.

* The trial is yet to commence as charges have not been framed.

Concluding that the petitioner had successfully made a case for bail, the Court ordered his release on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The order explicitly stated that its observations should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.