Posting pictures of prohibited arms online does not amount to sedition, says Himachal HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to 20-year-old Abhishek Bhardwaj, a college drop-out, who was arrested in May 2025 on charges of “spying” for Pakistan. The court ruled that merely posting pictures or videos with prohibited arms on social media does not amount to sedition.

Abhishek Bhardwaj, from Sukahar in the Dehra subdivision of Kangra district, was taken into custody after police found sensitive and objectionable content on his mobile phone. Authorities had alleged that Bhardwaj was sharing intelligence with Pakistan and following anti-national individuals. He was booked under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

Police said that Bhardwaj had uploaded photos and videos on Facebook featuring prohibited weapons. He had also posted images of the Pakistan flag and allegedly shared information about “Operation Sindoor,” criticizing it and expressing support for Khalistan. These posts drew the attention of law enforcement agencies and led to his arrest.

At the time of his arrest, authorities claimed that Bhardwaj had been under surveillance for several days. Police alleged that he had communicated with certain Pakistani individuals and shared material they considered objectionable. Bhardwaj denied any wrongdoing and said his posts were not intended to incite violence or cause disaffection against the Indian government.

Court observations on posts and intentions

While granting bail, the High Court bench noted that no prohibited weapons were recovered from Bhardwaj. The court observed, “Merely posting pictures of prohibited arms forming the name of a person does not amount to sedition.” The HC also noted that the FIR did not mention any act of hatred or discontent directed towards the Indian government.

The court examined the evidence, including a pen drive containing videos and images, and found that the content primarily showed chats in which Bhardwaj and another individual criticized hostilities between India and Pakistan. The bench observed that their conversations promoted peace and unity among people of all religions. The court said, “It is difficult to see how a desire to end hostilities and promote peace can amount to sedition.”

The police had claimed that Bhardwaj had raised the slogan “Khalistan Zindabad.” However, the court found no such slogan in the mobile phone data presented during the trial. Even assuming the slogan was raised, the High Court referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment stating that merely raising such slogans does not automatically constitute an offense.

The court emphasized that there was no evidence showing that anyone was incited towards disaffection by Bhardwaj’s social media posts. Therefore, simply posting the slogans or images did not prima facie amount to any crime.

Bail granted considering legal principles

The HC bench granted bail to Bhardwaj for a sum of ₹50,000, with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court considered that the chargesheet had already been filed before the trial court and that keeping Bhardwaj in custody would not serve any useful purpose.

The bench highlighted an important principle of law, stating that the provisions of bail cannot be used as a means to punish a person before proving their guilt. On this basis, the court concluded that Bhardwaj deserved to be released on bail while the legal proceedings continue.

Authorities stressed that the police were following due process, but the High Court made it clear that suspicion alone does not justify prolonged detention. The court also noted that Bhardwaj’s actions, according to the evidence, did not directly threaten national security or public order.

The case has gained attention because it deals with sensitive issues like sedition, national security, and social media conduct. Legal experts say that this ruling could set a precedent for future cases involving online posts of weapons or controversial symbols. The judgment highlights that intent and actual harm are crucial in determining whether an act qualifies as sedition.

While the police maintain that they acted according to the law, the High Court’s judgment reminds authorities to carefully differentiate between actual threats to the nation and social media expressions that, although provocative, do not incite violence or rebellion.

Bhardwaj’s release on bail allows him to remain free while the trial continues. The court’s observations may guide both the prosecution and defense in presenting their arguments, particularly regarding how online content is interpreted under laws concerning sedition and national security.

The case underlines the importance of judicial scrutiny in matters involving personal freedoms, digital expression, and national security. It also shows the need for law enforcement to gather clear evidence of intent before filing charges of sedition or anti-national activity.