Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused of Circulating Pakistan-Made Video Against PM

A case was registered earlier this year at the Bhopa police station in Muzaffarnagar. Savej was arrested on May 10, 2025, and charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including Sections 147, 152, 196, and 197(1)(d), as well as Section 13(A) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Opposing the bail plea, the Additional Government Advocate argued that the applicant’s innocence could not be determined at the pre-trial stage and stressed that the offence was grave in nature. It was submitted that Savej had circulated a video allegedly created in Pakistan, which adversely impacted national security and public order. While acknowledging that the video was not produced by him but only shared through his mobile phone, the State contended that such circulation had the potential to disturb communal harmony. The prosecution further noted that the charge sheet had already been filed and warned that if released, the applicant was likely to indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

On the other hand, the counsel for Savej argued that he had not committed any of the offences alleged in the FIR, which he described as false and concocted to harass and humiliate him. It was submitted that Savej's arrest was made merely on suspicion and that the alleged recovery of a mobile phone was fabricated, with no independent witness examined during the investigation. The counsel further claimed that the investigation was one-sided and biased, leading to a charge sheet under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the UAPA, which, according to them, were not applicable in this case. Stressing that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since May 10, 2025, counsel assured the court that he would not misuse the liberty if released on bail.

Court, after examining the record, found no evidence of past criminal conduct and highlighted the uncertainty of early trial completion. Justice Rai referred to the Supreme Court decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) and noted that undertrials face prolonged incarceration due to delays and overcrowded jails, sometimes holding five to six times their sanctioned capacity.

The judge granted the bail to the accused with stringent conditions. Savej must not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or seek adjournments when evidence is scheduled. He must remain present at crucial trial stages, including framing of charges and recording of statement under Section 313. Any violation, the court clarified, would be treated as an abuse of liberty and grounds for cancellation of bail.