Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Raising 'Pakistan Zindabad' Slogan
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of raising the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” during conflict between India and Pakistan in May, observing that the question of whether the offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 is made out would be a matter for trial.Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said, "The veracity of the allegations would...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of raising the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” during conflict between India and Pakistan in May, observing that the question of whether the offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 is made out would be a matter for trial.
Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said, "The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court."
The plea was filed by Ameen, who had sought regular bail in an FIR registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula, under Sections 152 (Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India) and 197-D (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of the BNS. The petitioner had been in custody since 10 May 2025.
According to the FIR lodged by complainant Nitish Kumar, Ameen allegedly raised the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” at a time when both countries were at war, which, according to the complainant, amounted to an act of treason. Based on these allegations, the police registered FIR dated 09 May 2025 and arrested the petitioner the next day. After completion of investigation, a challan was presented.
The petitioner's bail plea had earlier been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula on 13 August 2025.
Senior counsel Kshitij Sharma for the petitioner argued that the FIR was politically motivated, alleging that the complainant was the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh. It was contended that even a bare reading of the FIR does not attract Section 152 BNS and that the prosecution itself is untenable. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court orders in Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India and S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India to question the constitutional validity of prosecuting speech of this nature.
It was further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the investigation is complete, and he has already been incarcerated for over six months.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that the allegations had been duly substantiated during investigation and that the acts attributed to the petitioner occurred during a wartime situation between the two countries. It was submitted that although the challan has been filed, charges are yet to be framed, and therefore no ground for bail was made out.
The Court noted that the petitioner has remained in custody for 6 months and 11 days and is not involved in any other case. While refraining from commenting on the merits of the prosecution or on the applicability of Section 152 BNS, the Court held that such issues are matters to be evaluated at trial.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shobit Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Pragun Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Title: Ameen v. State of Haryana