Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail In Case Over AI-Generated Image Of PM Modi With ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ Caption

Case Title: Suleman v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Date of Order: 19 August 2025 — This is when the High Court delivered its bail order.

Case Summary

A street vendor, Suleman from Paonta Sahib (Sirmour district, HP), was arrested and charged under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—the sedition-equivalent provision—for sharing an AI-generated image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi accompanied by the caption “Pakistan Zindabad” on Facebook. He surrendered in July 2025. The High Court granted bail, observing that merely praising another country without denouncing India does not constitute sedition, as it lacks incitement to violence or rebellion.

About Sedition (Section 152 BNS)

Under Section 152 of the BNS, acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India are criminalized—functionally replacing the IPC’s sedition provision (Section 124A). However, the wording of Section 152 remains broad and has raised concerns regarding vagueness and potential misuse. Notably, the Supreme Court has earlier granted relief from coercive action under this section citing its chilling effect.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner is a poor, illiterate street vendor who did not create or understand the Facebook post.

• His Facebook account was created by his son; the informant (in conflict with Suleman over money) had access and posted the image.

• Alleged that he was falsely implicated and that further custody was unnecessary since the chargesheet had already been filed and the device seized.

State’s Argument:

• The State argued that relations between India and Pakistan were strained when the post was made; hence, writing “Pakistan Zindabad” was “anti-national” and deserved legal action.

Court Order / Judgment

Justice Rakesh Kainthla granted bail, reasoning: “Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offense of sedition”—as it does not incite armed rebellion, subversion, or separatism.

The complaint lacked any assertion of hatred or discontent against India's government. With the device already seized and the chargesheet filed, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The bail was granted on a sum of ₹50,000, with a similar surety amount.

Conclusion

This judgment is a measured reaffirmation of freedom of expression within constitutional limits. The Himachal Pradesh High Court drew a vital distinction: mere appreciation of another country—absent any disassociation or incitement—does not constitute sedition. The ruling highlights the need for evidentiary thresholds in BNS-based sedition allegations, especially when digital actions are involved. It also underscores procedural safeguards, discouraging unnecessary custody once the investigative process is complete.