Back
Granted: Painting Khalistan Slogans Alone Not Offence, Says
A Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur of the granted to Jugraj Singh @ Sony , who had spent over 17 months in in a case involving the painting of pro-Khalistan slogans on government property in Sangrur district.
The appellant had approached the High Court challenging the order dated passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which had dismissed his application in FIR No. 8 registered on at Police Station Dharamgarh. The FIR invoked Sections 192 and 61(2) of the , read with Sections 153 and 120-B of the , alongside Sections 10 and 13 of the .
When a Yellow Flag Sparked an Investigation
According to the prosecution, on , SI/SHO Gurpal Singh and his team were conducting patrol checks near the Bus Stand at Satauj when they received information that pro-Khalistan slogans had been painted on the wall of an Electricity Grid at Tolawal Road in village Satauj. A yellow flag bearing 'Deg Teg Fateh' and 'Khanda' symbols, with the words 'Khalistan Jindabad' written on it, had been hung on the wall. The prosecution alleged that Gurpatwant Singh Pannu of the — a banned outfit — had circulated a viral video generating fear among the public and disturbing peace in the State.
The trail led to Jugraj Singh, who was arrested on while confined in jail at Mansa. During investigation, he allegedly disclosed that while in Bathinda jail, he met Amritpal Singh, who identified himself as pro-Khalistani and promised him Rs. 20,000 for writing slogans on government walls. Following his release on on , the appellant allegedly received instructions from Baljinder Singh via WhatsApp, along with two cans of black paint and a yellow flag. On the appointed night, Jugraj Singh and co-accused Gurmeet Singh @ Gitti, with muffled faces, painted the slogans, affixed the flag, and photographed the site before sending the images to Baljinder Singh.
The Battle Over
, counsel for the appellant, argued that his client's alleged role was confined to painting slogans on government buildings with black paint. He emphasised that the appellant had been in custody since — over one year and five months — and that the investigation stood completed. Crucially, he contended that only empty paint cans had been recovered, and that the act of writing "Khalistan Jindabad" is not prohibited in law. He further highlighted that co-accused Baljinder Singh, accused of supplying the flag and directing the act, had already been granted by the Co-ordinate Bench on in CRA-D-1508-2025, and that co-accused Atarveer Singh, linked to the money transfer, had similarly been granted in CRA-D-1051-2025 on the same date.
Opposing the plea, Senior Deputy Advocate General submitted that the appellant is a convict involved in two other cases and that he had come into contact with the banned outfit Sikh for Justice while incarcerated. However, the State conceded that the appellant had been in custody since and that the investigation had been completed. It was also undisputed that, apart from the defiling of a government wall and the alleged transfer of Rs. 20,000, no other role had been attributed to the appellant.
"At Best a Case of "
The Court weighed the nature of the allegations against the rigour of the statutory provisions invoked. In its pivotal observation, the Bench held that the conduct attributed to the appellant fell short of constituting an offence under the :
"The same could at best be a case of and not an offence under the ( )."
The Court also accepted the appellant's submission that the writing of the slogans "Khalistan Jindabad" is not prohibited in law, notwithstanding the state's concerns about public order. The Bench considered three decisive factors — the limited role attributed to the appellant, the completed investigation, and the with co-accused who had already been released on — in concluding that continued incarceration was not warranted.
What the Court Ordered
The appeal was allowed, and Jugraj Singh was ordered to be released on upon furnishing requisite bonds and to the satisfaction of the or the concerned. A condition was imposed that the appellant shall not extend any threat to, or attempt to influence, prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
The Court, however, clarified that its observations shall not be construed as an expression on the of the case, and the shall proceed to decide the matter on the basis of available material. The ruling underscores that a mere act of painting slogans on public property, without more, may not attract the stringent provisions of the — a principle that could influence similar pleas pending across the State.
