Neha Singh Rathore vs Uttar Pradesh: Allahabad HC Declines Anticipatory Bail in Pahalgam Terror Attack Tweet FIR

The Allahabad High Court on December 5, 2025 rejected the anticipatory bail plea of folk singer Neha Singh Rathore, holding that no case for pre-arrest protection was made out in the criminal proceedings arising from her tweets posted after the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack.

Court, while finding the application maintainable, concluded that she has not cooperated in the investigation and that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in her earlier challenge to the FIR restrict the high court from examining the merits of the offences at this stage.

The bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh noted that although Rathore could approach the high court directly because she is not a resident of the district where the FIR was lodged, the facts of the case did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

The FIR was registered at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow on April 27, 2025, invoking multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 152, 196, 197, 353, and 302, besides Section 69(a) of the Information Technology Act.

According to the FIR, Rathore’s tweets, posted days after 26 Hindu pilgrims were killed by terrorists in Pahalgam, allegedly sought to incite disharmony, promote enmity, and undermine national integrity. The prosecution asserted that her posts which were widely circulated on social media and reported to have been picked up by Pakistani accounts, contained insinuations against the government and statements capable of disturbing public order.

The FIR appended URLs of the tweets, including remarks questioning the conduct of political rallies after the attack and comments suggesting that the government was pushing the country toward war.

Rathore's counsel argued that none of the offences mentioned in the FIR were attracted and that her statements constituted protected speech under Article 19(1)(a). The counsel submitted that Section 152 BNS (the new provision replacing sedition) requires a deliberate intent to incite secession or rebellion, which was absent, and that Section 159 BNS, relating to abetment of mutiny, was wholly inapplicable. She relied on Supreme Court and High Court precedents asserting that criticism of the government cannot be equated with anti-national conduct.

The State opposed the plea, pointing out that Rathore had earlier challenged the FIR through a writ petition, which was dismissed on September 19 with a direction that she cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer. She then approached the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere with the FIR on October 13 and granted her liberty only to raise her objections at the stage of framing of charges. The government argued that this order constitutes a binding limitation on the high court’s jurisdiction to examine the merits of the case in a bail proceeding.

The prosecution further stated that Rathore has not joined the investigation despite notices and attempts by the police to locate her at her last-known addresses. Written instructions placed before the court recorded that she changed residences frequently and avoided appearing before the investigating officer, thereby obstructing the inquiry.

Taking note of these circumstances, court observed that more than seven months had elapsed since the FIR, yet Rathore had not cooperated in the investigation. It also noted that the tweets were made at a sensitive time and contained references to the Prime Minister in a manner the court described as disrespectful.

Court held that while Article 19 guarantees free speech, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, and the nature and timing of the tweets required the matter to be examined during trial, not in an anticipatory bail hearing.

Concluding that the Supreme Court had already declined to interfere with the FIR and had directed Rathore to raise all legal issues only at the stage of charge or discharge, the high court rejected the plea. "However, it is open for the applicant to seek legal remedy as may be available under law," court added.

Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakravarty, assisted by advocates Shivanshu Goswami, Kaustubh Singh and Arpit Verma, appeared for Neha Singh Rathore. The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Dr. V.K. Singh, Government Advocate, assisted by Rajdeep Singh, AGA-I.

Case Title: Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another

Order Date: December 5, 2025

Bench: Justice Brij Raj Singh