IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 2763 of 2025

Reserved on: 16.12.2025

Date of Decision: 1.1.2026.

Abhishek ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri,

Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy

Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 71 of 2025, dated 28.5.2025, registered in Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 152 of

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. It has been asserted that the police party was on patrolling duty on 28.5.2025 when they received secret

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

information that Abhishek Singh Bhardwaj, the present petitioner, had uploaded his photo and video on Facebook with prohibited/illegal weapons, and he was following anti-national persons. The police associated Mohinder Singh and reached the petitioner’s house, where his parents were present. The petitioner came out after some time. The police asked the petitioner to open his Facebook ID, photographs and video. The flag of Pakistan and arms were found uploaded. The police searched the house, but no prohibited arms were recovered. The police seized the mobile phone. The petitioner had shared the information about Operation Sindoor with some Pakistani persons, wherein he declared that Operation Sindoor was wrong and he supported Khalistan. These allegations are false. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 28.5.2025. They received secret information at Dehra Chowk that the petitioner had uploaded photos and videos with prohibited weapons. He had written his name with those weapons. The police informed SDPO about the information, joined Jagdish Ram and Mohinder Singh as independent witnesses and went to the petitioner’s house. The petitioner’s parents were found in the house. The petitioner also came out after some time. His Facebook ID was checked, and the photographs of prohibited weapons, videos, flag of Pakistan were found to be uploaded. The police searched the house, but no illegal substance was found. The police seized the mobile phone. The petitioner had chatted with Niaz Khan, in which he had stated that Operation Sindoor was wrong; and he had supported Khalistan. The mobile phone was sent to the FSL, and the result has been obtained. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses on 14.1.2026.

4. I have heard Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations made in the FIR do not satisfy the requirement of Section 152 of the BNS. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in anti-national activities. He was in touch with Pakistani Nationals. The offence is grave. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025)