"Reviving Khalistani Moment Threat To Sovereignty": Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Circulating 'Inflammatory Videos' On Social Media

The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant bail to a man accused of writing provocative slogans supporting the Khalistani movement on walls and circulating inflammatory videos on social media.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "Prima facie the allegations against the petitioner are not only serious but strike at the core of national integrity and public security. The petitioner is accused of orchestrating activities aimed at reviving the Khalistani movement which poses significant threats to the stability of the State of Punjab and the nation as a whole."

These observations were made while hearing bail plea for grant of regular bail in case under Sections 121-A, 124-A, 153-A, 120-B IPC and Sections 66-A, 66-F of IT Act.

Counsel for the prtitioner contended that the petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2022, the challan was presented on 12.05.2023 and charges were framed on 14.08.2024. Despite the passage of significant time, the trial has not concluded as none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.

The petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was any incriminating material recovered from his possession to link him with the alleged offences, he added.

Opposing the bail, the State counsel said that a video containing inflammatory and anti-national content was circulated by the petitioner and was made viral on social media, amplifying the potential for disruption of law and order in Punjab.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the specific allegations against the petitioner include defacing public property by writing slogans supporting the Khalistani movement and circulating inflammatory videos on social media.

These acts, if proven, are not merely criminal but have the potential to incite violence, foster communal discord, and destabilize the social fabric of the State, added the Court.

Justice Kaul highlighted thatthe  petitioner is facing similar charges in multiple FIRs across the State of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. "No doubt there has been some delay in conclusion of the trial, however, it is not sufficient to outweigh the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner," the judge opined.

Stating that "Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner pose a direct and severe threat to the sovereignty and security of the State," the Court rejected the bail plea.

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Title: RAMAN @ SONU v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 63

Click here to read/download the order