INTRODUCTION:

In Ameen v. State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court considered a crucial question arising under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—whether raising the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” during a period of heightened hostilities between India and Pakistan constitutes an offence under Section 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India) and Section 197-D (imputations prejudicial to national integration). Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj examined the petition filed by Ameen, who sought regular bail after being incarcerated for more than six months following his arrest in FIR No. 184 dated 09 May 2025, registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Kshitij Sharma along with Mr. Shobit Sharma and Mr. Pragun Goyal, contested the FIR as politically motivated and legally unsustainable, whereas the State, represented by Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana, opposed the grant of bail.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

The petitioner submitted that the allegations were politically driven, pointing out that the complainant Nitish Kumar was the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, thereby giving rise to a political bias behind the FIR. It was argued that even a plain reading of the FIR failed to attract the ingredients of Section 152 of the BNS, which deals with acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. The defence emphasized that shouting a slogan, even if provocative, cannot automatically amount to an act threatening national integrity unless accompanied by intention, incitement, or direct impact on public order. The petitioner relied upon landmark Supreme Court judgments like Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India and S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, which reaffirmed the constitutional protection of speech and imposed limitations on criminalizing expressions without clear linkage to violence, disorder, or public threat. It was further contended that no preliminary evidence demonstrated that the slogan created any disturbance or posed any actual threat. The counsel highlighted the absence of criminal antecedents, complete investigation, and prolonged incarceration of over six months, making continued custody unjustified. They argued that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly when the trial has yet to commence and the accused has cooperated throughout the investigation. It was also stressed that political or emotional reactions cannot substitute legal standards for restricting liberty under criminal law, and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner lacked constitutional and statutory basis.

ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:

Opposing the bail plea, the State argued that the allegations were serious in nature because the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” was allegedly raised during an active conflict between India and Pakistan. According to the State, shouting such a slogan at a time of war had a distinct tendency to undermine morale, inflame tensions, and impact national unity, thereby falling squarely within the ambit of Sections 152 and 197-D of the BNS. The State maintained that during investigation, the allegations had been duly corroborated and that the conduct of the petitioner was not merely a casual utterance but one carrying symbolic and emotional significance in a period of heightened national sensitivity. It was argued that because charges were yet to be framed, granting bail at this stage may hinder the prosecution process. The State emphasized that national security and public sentiment during wartime must be given due regard and that the Court should adopt a cautious approach in releasing individuals accused of acts potentially prejudicial to national integrity. The prosecution contended that even though the investigation was complete and the challan filed, the gravity of the offence warranted continued detention to prevent any possibility of influencing witnesses or disturbing public harmony.

COURT’S JUDGMENT:

The High Court, while assessing the submissions, observed that the question of whether raising the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” in the alleged circumstances amounts to an offence under Section 152 of the BNS is fundamentally a matter for trial. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj emphasized that the veracity of the allegations, the context in which the slogan was raised, and whether its utterance endangered the sovereignty or integrity of India are all issues that require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the bail stage. The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for six months and eleven days and that he had no prior criminal history. It acknowledged that although the allegations may be serious, prolonged pre-trial detention without commencement of trial would infringe constitutional guarantees of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court reiterated that bail jurisprudence requires balancing the seriousness of allegations with the fundamental right to liberty, and that when the investigation is complete and the accused has cooperated, continued incarceration becomes punitive rather than preventive. The Court also refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution to avoid prejudicing the trial but noted that the applicability of Section 152 BNS is not automatically established merely by the slogan, particularly since the statute requires acts that genuinely endanger sovereignty or unity. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for bail and granted regular bail, subject to appropriate conditions. The decision underscored that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to suppress expressions unless they cross the threshold of clear and present danger, and the mere raising of slogans, without accompanying acts of violence or incitement, may not be sufficient to attract stringent penal provisions. With this reasoning, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release, ensuring that liberty is not sacrificed at the altar of untested allegations, while leaving all substantive legal questions open for determination at trial.