High Court Rejects Bail for Man Over ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ Facebook Post, Cites Threat to National Unity
The Allahabad High Court has denied the bail plea of 62-year-old Ansar Ahmed Siddique, who was accused of sharing a Facebook post containing the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” and making appeals in support of “jihad” and Pakistani interests. In a firm stance underscoring the seriousness of the matter, the court emphasized that increasing tolerance towards such acts with anti-national overtones has led to a disturbing rise in similar incidents across the country. Justice Siddhartha, while rejecting the bail application, stated that the growing frequency of such offenses stems from the liberal and tolerant attitude of courts towards individuals demonstrating an anti-national mindset. He remarked that this was not a fit case for granting bail at the current stage of investigation.
The court strongly observed that Siddique’s actions were disrespectful to the Indian Constitution and its ideals, stating that his conduct amounted to challenging India’s sovereignty and adversely impacting the unity and integrity of the nation. The judge further highlighted that Siddique, being a senior citizen born in independent India, should have exhibited a responsible attitude, but instead chose to engage in behavior deemed anti-national. As a result, the court held that he could not invoke the protection of his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The First Information Report (FIR) registered at Chhatari police station in Uttar Pradesh’s Bulandshahar district alleges that Siddique had shared a Facebook post which not only contained the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” but also promoted “jihad” and called upon Indian Muslims to support their “Pakistani brothers.” Authorities claim that this post was a serious threat to national sentiments and the constitutional fabric of the country, thereby endangering its unity and sovereignty.
The case has been filed under sections 197 and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertain to acts undermining national integration and those endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. During the hearing, Siddique’s legal counsel argued that the accused merely shared a video and did not author the content. He further added that Siddique was 62 years old and undergoing medical treatment, suggesting that his age and health should be considered for leniency. However, the counsel representing the Uttar Pradesh government strongly opposed the bail plea, maintaining that the accused’s conduct was against the national interest and thus did not merit release on bail.
Notably, the video in question was reportedly shared on social media shortly after the tragic Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, in which 26 people lost their lives. This timing, the government argued, reflected Siddique’s support for terrorist actions and made his conduct even more alarming. The court concurred with this reasoning, asserting that such behavior directly violates the fundamental duties of Indian citizens as laid out in Article 51A of the Constitution. Specifically, Article 51A(a) requires citizens to respect the Constitution and its institutions, while Article 51A(c) mandates the protection of the country’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
Although the court refused to grant bail, it did direct that the trial proceedings be conducted and concluded expeditiously to ensure timely justice. This landmark decision serves as a strong message on the judiciary’s zero tolerance for any expression or act that can be perceived as a threat to the nation’s sovereignty or a disruption to its unity.
For video news, visit our YouTube channel THE OLIGO.
