Back
'Protest for Iran, Not Against India': MP High Court Frees Men Jailed Over Instagram Reel
In a pointed rebuke to hasty policing, the on April 9, 2026, granted regular bail to Wasim Khan and Yousuf Mehafooz, two men arrested for appearing in an Instagram reel voicing solidarity with Iran amid its conflict with the United States. Justice Ramkumar Choubey ruled that the video—featuring chants like
"Iran Ka Sath Dene Ja Rahe Hai Sab Milkar Allahu Akbar"
and
"Hindustan Ka Musalman Na Kal Dara Tha Na Ham Aaj Darengey"
—did not promote enmity between religious groups under . The men, in custody since March 8, walked free after furnishing Rs 50,000 personal bonds each.
Viral Video to Viral Arrest: How a Complaint Sparked the Case
The trouble began on March 7, 2026, when Brajesh Chavariya filed a complaint at Kotwali Police Station in Raisen district. He spotted the reel, interpreting the pro-Iran slogans as inflammatory. Police swiftly registered FIR No. 112/2026 under , which targets those who
"promote or attempt to promote... disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious... groups"
via words, signs, or electronic means. Wasim Khan and Yousuf Mehafooz—described in media reports as Muslim men expressing defiance amid West Asia tensions—were arrested the next day. This marked their first bail plea under .
Defense: 'False Implication, No Crime in Protest' vs State's 'Investigation Ongoing'
The applicants' counsel, Shri Zeeshan Siddiqui and Shri Sharik Akeel Farooqui, argued innocence, claiming false implication driven by the complainant's "particular ideology." Even taking the FIR at face value, they said, no offence under was made out. With over a month in jail and no risk of flight or evidence tampering, they urged release.
The state, via panel lawyer Shri Amit Pandey, countered that the applicants uploaded "incriminating material." Investigation was underway, with more evidence expected, making bail premature.
Court's Dissection: Speech as Solidarity, Not Sedition
Justice Choubey delved into the case diary, finding the FIR rested solely on the reel. He quoted verbatim, then zeroed in on the content: it depicted a
"protest in favour of foreign country Iran, which is recently facing War with the United State of America."
No enmity promotion on grounds of religion, race, or language was evident. The judge lambasted the police: the FIR was lodged
"even without having sufficient material constituting the alleged offence."
Without opining on merits, he deemed it a "fit case" for bail, imposing standard conditions under .
Media coverage echoed this, with reports from The Indian Express and others highlighting the reel's context as political expression tied to global events, not domestic discord.
Key Observations
"none of the content can be said to be promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., rather it is only showing a protest in favour of foreign country Iran..."
"It also appears that the police has registered an FIR against the applicants even without having sufficient material constituting the alleged offence."
"Therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicants on bail may be released on bail."
"Whoever- (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote... disharmony or feelings of enmity..."(quoting )
Bail with a Message: Implications for Social Media and Free Speech
The duo must appear in trial court as required, but the ruling sends ripples. It underscores that voicing support for foreign causes—even boldly—doesn't automatically trigger BNS 196 if no communal targeting is clear. In an era of viral videos and quick FIRs, courts may now scrutinize police actions more closely, protecting expression while safeguarding harmony. Future cases involving online protests could cite this as precedent against overzealous bookings.
