The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application of the applicant who was charged with posting anti-national content on Facebook, including a morphed image showing the Indian National Flag on the ground with a dog sitting on it. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that the posts were provocative, objectionable and capable of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing public peace, indicating inclination towards glorification of anti-national ideology which cannot be ignored.
The case revolves around the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 104 of 2025 under Sections 152, 192, 197(1), and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at a police station in District Muzaffar Nagar. It was alleged by the prosecution that an FIR was lodged on May 16, 2025, by a police officer stating that while he and another constable were on patrolling duty, they received information through a social media post that the applicant had uploaded content on their Facebook account in support of Pakistan. The post reportedly read “Kamran Bhatti Proud of You. Pakistan Zindabad” and showed the Indian National Flag placed on the ground with a dog sitting on it.
It was alleged in the FIR that from the said post, it appeared that the applicant was supporting Pakistan while living in India, and when the whole country was struggling with terrorist activities of Pakistan, the applicant while living in India was uploading anti-national posts against his own country. It was stated that the post had hurt religious sentiments in the area, resulting in the growth of feelings of enmity, hatred, and animosity between castes and communities on the basis of religion, which created a possibility of breach of peace. During the investigation, the applicant was arrested on June 7, 2025. Subsequently, he filed a bail application before the district court, which was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, on July 21, 2025.
The applicant contended that he was innocent and had not committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. It was submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated and had neither uploaded, nor liked any anti-national post or hurt the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The applicant was languishing in jail since June 7, 2025, therefore, he may be released on bail.
However, the respondent’s opposed the prayer for bail arguing that during investigation, the applicant’s Facebook ID details were obtained from Meta, and as per the cyber report based on Meta’s information, specific IP addresses used to upload the posts were found to be linked to the applicant’s mobile number, which was also registered with the Facebook ID. The applicant was arrested on June 7, 2025, and the mobile phone used in the crime, manufactured by Vivo Company, was seized and sent for forensic examination. It was further pointed out that independent witnesses had their statements recorded, supporting the prosecution case and indicating that animosity based on religious feelings could not be ruled out. It was submitted that the applicant had a criminal history in two other cases under the Arms Act and Sections 307 and 504 IPC, and that insulting the National Flag was a serious offense, making the bail application liable to be rejected.
Justice Singh observed that during investigation, it was established that the said social media post against India and in support of Pakistan had been uploaded by the applicant through his Facebook account. The applicants could not give a satisfactory reply regarding the posts noting that the comment made by the applicant insulting the Indian National Flag, stating ‘Ab to kutty b mot rahe h,’ was a matter of grave concern. It was held that the applicant’s feelings for the country were not patriotic and that he had intentionally posted the content to lower India’s dignity. It was emphasized that the Indian National Flag is a symbol of pride and patriotism, representing strength, peace, and growth.
It was observed that every Indian citizen must safeguard and protect the dignity and honour of the National Flag, and it should not be intentionally allowed to touch the ground or floor. The Court held that any comment or insult against the National Flag constituted a punishable offence by law, and acts such as burning, mutilating, defiling, destroying, or trampling upon it were offences. It was emphasized that any person involved, directly or indirectly, in maligning the image of the country and the National Flag was hazardous to society and not entitled to any sympathetic consideration.
Conclusively, considering the nature of the post, its gravity, and the impact on social harmony, the Court found no good grounds to release the applicant on bail and accordingly rejected the bail application.
Appearances:
Applicant: Atul Kumar
State: G.A.
