
'No Societal Harm': Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail In Case Over Anti-Govt Post After Pahalgam Attack
The post urged people to ignore claims that the attackers asked for victims' names before firing and instead called for accountability regarding the security failure
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of sharing a social media post critical of government actions in the aftermath of the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir.
The court observed that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that the alleged offence had an impact on society at large or that it could cause any harm.
The bail application was filed by Azaz Ahmad, who had been booked under Sections 353(3) and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Izzatnagar Police Station, Bareilly. According to the prosecution, Ahmad had posted objectionable remarks against the government on social media during the period of national mourning following the attack.
As per the FIR, sub-inspector Mukesh Chauhan reported that while he was in the Munshinagar area, he witnessed a candlelight vigil being held by residents in honour of the victims. Around the same time, a post questioning the government's narrative began circulating widely on social media. The message urged people to shift focus away from claims that the attackers asked for victims' names before firing and instead called for accountability regarding the security failure that allowed the attack to occur.
The police claimed that the timing and tone of the post aggravated communal tensions and disrupted public harmony during a sensitive period.
The post bore Ahmad's name and identified him as the district president of the Mulayam Singh Youth Brigade, further amplifying its reach and visibility.
However, pleading for pre-arrest bail, Ahmad's counsel argued that the offence under Section 353 of the BNS, which carries a sentence of less than seven years, may be applicable at best, and that the more serious charge under Section 152 BNS was not justified. He submitted that criticising the government by itself cannot be treated as against the country.
The bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan, while hearing the application, noted that the prosecution had not provided any material suggesting that Ahmad's social media activity had caused societal harm or could obstruct justice.
The court further observed that no concerns had been raised by the prosecution regarding Ahmad tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evading the investigation. While Ahmad's criminal antecedents were pointed out, the court relied on Supreme Court precedents to assert that such history alone cannot be grounds to deny bail unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Citing the judgments of Ash Mohammad v Shiv Raj Singh and Prabhakar Tewari v State of UP, the bench reiterated that the presence of prior criminal cases does not automatically disqualify an individual from receiving bail.
Granting relief, the court directed that Ahmad be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 along with two sureties of like amount. Conditions, including regular cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with evidence or witnesses, and a prohibition on leaving the country without court permission, were also imposed.
The court concluded by warning that any violation of the set conditions may lead to cancellation of the bail protection.
view comments
First Published:
July 10, 2025, 04:39 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Enact separate, comprehensive law criminalising custodial torture'
Madurai: A collective of around 150 representatives from various civil society organizations, human rights activists, writers, and artists, among others, on Saturday released a document, demanding urgent reforms and highlighting the need for a separate and comprehensive law criminalising custodial torture and death. The document, sent by email to the state govt, comes in the wake of the recent Sivaganga custodial death of temple security guard B Ajith Kumar at Thiruppuvanam. The collective, under the banner of 'Coalition of People's Movements Against Police Violence', observed that while govt officials have consistently stated that custodial torture is illegal, there remains a belief within the police force that truth can only be extracted from suspects through physical or psychological torture. "Indian law does not explicitly define 'torture'. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 125 (8) criminalizes unlawful confinement for the purpose of obtaining confessions or retrieving property, with a maximum punishment of three years. However, this provision is inadequate to address serious crimes such as torture, custodial deaths, and extrajudicial killings. Therefore, a separate and comprehensive anti-torture law is imperative at the state level," they added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Fastest Selling Plots of Mysore from 40L | 40+ Amenities PurpleBrick Learn More Undo R Murali, one of the coordinators of the coalition, said that they have put forth 13 demands, including establishing an independent authority to handle complaints against the police, and ensure accountability at district level by involving senior police officers in cases of custodial violence. "Since the investigating officers are often the same persons who register FIRs, this leads to bias, suppression, or distortion of facts. The independent authority should comprise retired judges, govt legal professionals, and qualified human rights activists," he added. The coalition further demanded more accountability from the Tamil Nadu govt in Ajith Kumar's custodial death case. The state govt should initiate its own independent investigation into the case, instead of depending solely on the CBI, they urged. Other coordinators of the coalition, advocate John Vincent and R Kumaran, called for publicising the recommendations of the Fifth Police Commission, chaired by retired justice C T Selvam, and to form a review panel of retired judges and human rights activists to assess and strengthen the recommendations.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Miscreants attack property advisor house with petrol bomb and gunfire in Ludhiana.
Ludhiana: A group of unidentified assailants allegedly hurled a petrol bomb and opened fire at the home of a local property advisor in Baddowal village in the early hours of Saturday, prompting a police investigation into what appears to be an attempted act of intimidation. Police said the attack occurred around 1.45am when the suspects arrived in a white car outside the residence of Yadvinder Singh. They reportedly lobbed an explosive device — believed to be a petrol bomb — from the rooftop of the moving vehicle, followed by multiple rounds of gunfire directed at the property. Deputy superintendent of police (Dakha), Varinder Singh Khosa, has claimed that four shots were fired, two of which struck the main gate of the house, while a third hit a palm tree inside the premises. No injuries were reported. "The motive is still under investigation," said DSP Khosa. "The complainant has informed us that he has no known enmity and has not received any threats prior to the incident." Police have registered a case under Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for acts endangering life or personal safety, along with relevant sections of the Arms Act. Investigators are currently analysing CCTV footage from the area and gathering local intelligence in an effort to identify the perpetrators. Authorities have assured that the case is being treated with urgency. "We're confident we'll crack it soon," Khosa said. MSID:: 122408421 413 |


Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Wife living separately from husband without valid reason not entitled to maintenance: HC
Prayagraj , The Allahabad High Court has observed that a wife living separately from her husband without a valid reason is not entitled to maintenance and set aside a family court order granting maintenance to a married woman. Wife living separately from husband without valid reason not entitled to maintenance: HC Allowing a revision petition filed by the woman's husband, Vipul Agrawal, Justice Subhas Chandra Sharma set aside the February 17 order of maintenance passed by the additional principal judge of the family court in Meerut. "The trial court has recorded the finding that the wife failed to prove that she is living separately from the husband with sufficient reasons and the husband is neglecting to maintain her, even though the amount of maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife at ₹5,000 per month. "As per the provision contained under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , if the wife is living separately from the husband without sufficient reasons, she is not entitled to maintenance," the high court said. During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has recorded the finding that the wife is living separately from her husband without sufficient reasons. Despite this, the family court has fixed the amount of maintenance at ₹5,000 per month. He also submitted that the trial court has not considered the earning capacity of the petitioner but fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife and a minor child at ₹5,000 and ₹3,000, totalling ₹8,000 per month. However, the lawyer representing the woman and the state counsel submitted that she is living separately from her husband due to his neglect and that is why the trial court has allowed the application and fixed the amount of maintenance. Allowing the revision petition of the husband, the court said, "In view of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the trial court in relation to the second issue and the order fixing the amount at ₹5,000 per month in favour of the wife, both are contradictory and in violation of the provision as contained in section 125, CrPC. Therefore, the order dated February 17, 2025 being erroneous requires interference by this court." The court, in its judgment dated July 8, sent the matter back to the family court to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. However, the court made it clear that the petitioner will continue to pay an amount of ₹3,000 per month for the wife and ₹2,000 per month for the child as interim maintenance during the pendency of the application. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.