Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a street vendor accused of posting an AI-generated image of the prime minister with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad.”
Justice Rakesh Kainthla ruled that praising another country, without denouncing India, does not amount to sedition under Section 152 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The Court noted no evidence of anti-India intent, adding that further custody was unnecessary as the electronic device had already been seized.
'Praising Another Country Not Sedition’: Himachal HC On Vendor’s Bail Plea
Vendor accused of posting AI-generated PM image with ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ granted bail after court rejects State’s contention.
Summary
A street seller accused of posting an AI-generated photo of Prime Minister on Facebook Modi with the caption, "Pakistan Zindabad," has been granted bail by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
According to Live Law, the Court ruled that merely praising another country without speaking against India does not amount to sedition as it does not encourage rebellion, violence, or separatist activities.
Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated that: “Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime.”
As per the reports, the slogan "Pakistan Zindabad" was allegedly shared by the petitioner along with an AI-generated image of the prime minister. This post was deemed offensive and against the country's interests, the prosecution argued. Outside the informant's store, the petitioner operated a little fruit cart and claimed to be an impoverished, illiterate street vendor.
The petitioner contended that he is a poor, illiterate street vendor who is running a small fruit cart outside the informant's shop. He is unable to operate a social media platform. His Facebook account was created by his son. The informant had access to his mobile phone and shared the controversial reel as there was a money-related issue between the two.
Additionally, the petitioner argued that he was wrongfully implicated and innocent. The accusations in the F.I.R. do not meet the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita's Section 152 requirements.
The state responded by arguing that the petition should be denied since writing Pakistan Zindabad was anti-national and India-Pakistan relations were poor at the time the post was posted. The Court noted that the complaint contained no evidence of animosity or dissatisfaction directed at the Indian government.
The electronic gadget has already been seized, the Court added, and the chargesheet does not indicate that the petitioner needs to be questioned in custody.
Advertisement
As a result, the Court granted the petitioner bail, concluding that keeping him in detention would not accomplish anything.
Published At: