# Riyaz v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 686
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22915 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/riyaz-v-state-of-u-p-54631
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for consideration
Whether the applicant can be released on bail?

Headnotes
A. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita: Section 152 -
Liberty of thought and expression is one of the
cornerstone ideals of our Constitution. Article
19(1)(a) confers a fundamental right on all
citizens to freedom of speech and expression.
Before registering a case regarding a post
on social media, it should be looked into
as a reasonable man and decision should
be based on standards of reasonable,
strong-minded,
firm
and
courageous
individuals and not based on standards of
people with weak and oscillating minds.
(Para 6)

B. Before invoking the Section 152 BNS,
reasonable care and standards of reasonable
person should be adopted as spoken words or
posts on social media is also covered by the
liberty of freedom of speech and expression,
which should not be narrowly construed unless
it is of such nature which effect the sovereignty
and integrity of a country or encourages
separatism. For attracting the ingredients
of Section 152 BNS, there must be
purpose by spoken or written words,
signs,
visible
representations,
the
electronic
communication
to
promote
secession, armed rebellion, subversive
activities
or
encourages
feeling
of
separating activities or endangers the
sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Therefore merely posting a message to simply
shows supporting of any country may create
anger or disharmony among citizens of India
and may also be punishable u/s 196 BNS which
is punishable up to seven years but definitively
will not attract the ingredients of Section 152
BNS. (Para 7)

C. Before invoking the Section 196 BNS or
other offences covered by the law referred
to in Clause 2 of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India preliminary inquiry
should be conducted as required u/s 173
(3) BNSS to ascertain whether prima facie
case is made out to proceed against the
accused but in the present case record
shows that no such preliminary inquiry
7 All. Riyaj Vs. State of U.P.
687
was conducted while registering the FIR
against the applicant. (Para 8)

Taking into account the observation made by
the Apex Court and considering the age of the
applicant and taking into account that charge
sheet has already been filed and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the applicant is considered entitled to be
enlarged on bail. (Para 9)

Bail granted. (Personal bond, sureties and conditions
imposed) (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and another,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 (Para 6)

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

List of Keywords
Criminal law; freedom of speech and expression;
fundamental
right;
constitution;
stringent
punishment; sovereignty; unity; integrity; charge
sheet; bail.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 09.06.2025 passed by
Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge
Sambhal in Bail Application No. 816 of 2025, arising
out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2025n u/s 152 B.N.S.

## Text

686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sheet against the applicants is abuse of the
process of the Court as no offence is made
out against them, hence impugned orders
dated 02.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 are liable
to be quashed in order to secure the end of
justice and in the light of principle of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the cases of Union of India vs. Prafulla
Kumar Samal (supra), Dilawar Babu
Kurane (supra), P.Vijayan (supra) and
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (supra).
Hence, the applicants are liable to be
discharged.

21- Accordingly, both the impugned
orders dated 02.03.2024 and 29.04.2024
qua
applicants
are
hereby
quashed.
Applicants are discharged from the charges
under sections 120-B, 420 and 471 IPC &
section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 levelled against
them.

22- This application under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 686
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22915 of
2025

Riyaz ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Whether the applicant can be released on bail?

Headnotes
A. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita: Section 152 -
Liberty of thought and expression is one of the
cornerstone ideals of our Constitution. Article
19(1)(a) confers a fundamental right on all
citizens to freedom of speech and expression.
Before registering a case regarding a post
on social media, it should be looked into
as a reasonable man and decision should
be based on standards of reasonable,
strong-minded,
firm
and
courageous
individuals and not based on standards of
people with weak and oscillating minds.
(Para 6)

B. Before invoking the Section 152 BNS,
reasonable care and standards of reasonable
person should be adopted as spoken words or
posts on social media is also covered by the
liberty of freedom of speech and expression,
which should not be narrowly construed unless
it is of such nature which effect the sovereignty
and integrity of a country or encourages
separatism. For attracting the ingredients
of Section 152 BNS, there must be
purpose by spoken or written words,
signs,
visible
representations,
the
electronic
communication
to
promote
secession, armed rebellion, subversive
activities
or
encourages
feeling
of
separating activities or endangers the
sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Therefore merely posting a message to simply
shows supporting of any country may create
anger or disharmony among citizens of India
and may also be punishable u/s 196 BNS which
is punishable up to seven years but definitively
will not attract the ingredients of Section 152
BNS. (Para 7)

C. Before invoking the Section 196 BNS or
other offences covered by the law referred
to in Clause 2 of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India preliminary inquiry
should be conducted as required u/s 173
(3) BNSS to ascertain whether prima facie
case is made out to proceed against the
accused but in the present case record
shows that no such preliminary inquiry
7 All. Riyaj Vs. State of U.P.
687
was conducted while registering the FIR
against the applicant. (Para 8)

Taking into account the observation made by
the Apex Court and considering the age of the
applicant and taking into account that charge
sheet has already been filed and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the applicant is considered entitled to be
enlarged on bail. (Para 9)

Bail granted. (Personal bond, sureties and conditions
imposed) (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and another,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 (Para 6)

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

List of Keywords
Criminal law; freedom of speech and expression;
fundamental
right;
constitution;
stringent
punishment; sovereignty; unity; integrity; charge
sheet; bail.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 09.06.2025 passed by
Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge
Sambhal in Bail Application No. 816 of 2025, arising
out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2025n u/s 152 B.N.S.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anish
Kumar Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. Instant bail application has been filed
with a prayer to release the applicant on bail
during the trial in Case Crime No. 169 of 2025,
under Section 152 BNS, Police Station- Bahjoi,
District Sambhal.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the
applicant is that as per the allegation made in
the FIR, the applicant has posted following
story through his Instagram ID;

"Chahe jo ho jai sport to bas ..... Pakistan
ka karenge."

It is further submitted by counsel for the
applicant that this post nowhere referable to
lower the dignity and sovereignty of country as
neither the flag of country was there nor use of
name or any photo which shows any disrespect
to the country and merely supporting a country,
even if, the country is enemy to the country of
India, will not attract the ingredients of
Section 152 BNS. He further submitted that
charge sheet has already been filed by the
police, therefore, there is no requirement for
custodial interrogation. The applicant has no
criminal history and he is languishing in jail
since 09.05.2025. He further submitted that as
the applicant is 18 year old boy, therefore, he
may be released on bail. In case, he is granted
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that such post of the applicant
through
Instagram
ID
encourages
the
separatism activity, therefore, the applicant is
not entitled to be released on bail.

5. Considering the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it
is not in dispute that while posting the aforesaid
post through Instagram ID, the applicant
has not mentioned anything which shows
disrespect towards our country. Merely
showing support to the Pakistan without
referring to any incident or mentioning the
name of India, will not prima facie attract
the offence under Section 152 BNS.

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat
and another; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678,
has observed that liberty of thought and
expression is one of the cornerstone ideals
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of our Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) confers
a fundamental right on all citizens to
freedom of speech and expression. Police
Officers being citizens, are bound to abide
by the Constitution. We are bound to
honour and uphold freedom of speech and
expression conferred to all citizens. It is
further observed by the Apex Court that
before registering a case regarding a post
on social media, it should be looked into as
a reasonable man and decision should be
based on standards of reasonable, strongminded, firm and courageous individuals
and not based on standards of people with
weak and oscillating minds.

7. Section 152 BNS is a new Section
providing stringent punishment and there
was no corresponding section in IPC,
therefore, before invoking the Section 152
BNS, reasonable care and standards of
reasonable person should be adopted as
spoken words or posts on social media is
also covered by the liberty of freedom of
speech and expression, which should not be
narrowly construed unless it is of such
nature which effect the sovereignty and
integrity of a country or encourages
separatism. For attracting the ingredients of
Section 152 BNS, there must be purpose by
spoken or written words, signs, visible
representations,
the
electronic
communication
to
promote
secession,
armed rebellion, subversive activities or
encourages feeling of separating activities
or endangers the sovereignty, unity and
integrity of India. Therefore merely posting
a message to simply shows supporting of
any
country
may
create
anger
or
disharmony among citizens of India and
may also be punishable under Section 196
BNS which is punishable up to seven years
but definitively will not attract the
ingredients of Section 152 BNS. It would
be beneficial to quote Sections 152 and 196
of BNS, 2023 which are as follows;

152. Act endangering sovereignty,
unity and integrity of India. - Whoever,
purposely or knowingly, by words, either
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation,
or
by
electronic
communication or by use of financial mean,
or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite,
secession or armed rebellion or subversive
activities,
or
encourages
feelings
of
separatist
activities
or
endangers
sovereignty or unity and integrity of India;
or indulges in or commits any such act
shall be punished with imprisonment for
life or with imprisonment which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Explanation.
Comments
expressing disapprobation of the measures,
or administrative or other action of the
Government with a view to obtain their
alteration by lawful means without exciting
or attempting to excite the activities
referred to in this section do not constitute
an offence under this section.

196. Promoting enmity between
different groups on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language,
etc.,
and
doing
acts
prejudicial
to
maintenance of harmony.?(1) Whoever?

(a) by words, either spoken or
written, or by signs or by visible
representations
or
through
electronic
communication or otherwise, promotes or
attempts to promote, on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste or community or any other
ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings
of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities;
or
7 All. Riyaj Vs. State of U.P.
689

(b) commits any act which is
prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony
between
different
religious,
racial,
language or regional groups or castes or
communities, and which disturbs or is
likely to disturb the public tranquillity; or

(c)
organises
any
exercise,
movement, drill or other similar activity
intending that the participants in such
activity shall use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence or knowing it to
be likely that the participants in such
activity will use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence, or participates
in such activity intending to use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence or
knowing it to be likely that the participants
in such activity will use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence, against any
religious, racial, language or regional
group or caste or community and such
activity for any reason whatsoever causes
or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a
feeling of insecurity amongst members of
such religious, racial, language or regional
group or caste or community,

shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) Whoever commits an offence
specified in sub-section (1) in any place of
worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance of religious worship or
religious ceremonies, shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to
five years and shall also be liable to fine.

8. The Apex Court in the case of
Imran Pratapgadhi (supra) has observed
that before invoking the Section 196 BNS
or other offences covered by the law
referred to in Clause 2 of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India preliminary inquiry
should be conducted as required under
Section 173 (3) BNSS to ascertain whether
prima facie case is made out to proceed
against the accused but in the present case
record shows that no such preliminary
inquiry was conducted while registering the
FIR against the applicant. Para 42 (v) and
(vi) of the Imran Pratapgadhi (supra)
case is being quoted as under;

42 (v). Clause (2) of Article 19 of
the Constitution carves out an exception to
the fundamental right guaranteed under
sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19. If
there is a law covered by clause (2), its
operation remains unaffected by sub-clause
(a) of clause (1). We must remember that
laws covered by the clause (2) are
protected by way of an exception provided
they impose a reasonable restriction.
Therefore, when an allegation is of the
commission of an offence covered by the
law referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if
sub-Section
(3)
of
Section
173
is
applicable, it is always appropriate to
conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain
whether a prima facie case is made out to
proceed against the accused. This will
ensure
that
the
fundamental
rights
guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause
(1) of Article 19 remain protected.
Therefore, in such cases, the higher police
officer referred to in sub-Section (3) of
Section
173
must
normally
grant
permission to the police officer to conduct
a preliminary inquiry.

(vi). When an offence punishable
under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the
effect of the spoken or written words will
have to be considered based on standards
of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and
courageous individuals and not based on
the standards of people with weak and
oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken
or written words cannot be judged on the
basis of the standards of people who
always have a sense of insecurity or of
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
those who always perceive criticism as a
threat to their power or position.

9. In view of above and taking into
account the observation made by the Apex
Court in Imran Pratapgadhi (supra) and
considering the age of the applicant and
taking into account that charge sheet has
already been filed and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, I am
of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Riyaz
involved
in
the
aforementioned
crime be released on bail, on his
furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount, to
the
satisfaction
of
the
court
concerned,
with
the
following
conditions:-

i. The applicant shall not
directly
or
indirectly
make
any
inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer or tamper with
the evidence.

ii.
The
applicant
shall
cooperate in the trial/investigation
sincerely
without
seeking
any
adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not
indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being
released on bail.

iv.
The
applicant
shall
attend
in
accordance
with
the
conditions of the bond executed by
him.

v. The applicant shall not post any
material on social media which could
create disharmony among citizens of India.

11. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

12. Identity, status and residence
proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the
bonds are accepted.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 690
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Commercial Appeal No. 2 of 2025
With
Commercial Appeal No. 4 of 2025

Reeta Chaddha & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Daya Shankar, Mahendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Suresh Singh, Vimlesh Kumar Rai

Issue for Consideration
Whether under proviso to Section 13(1A) of the
Act, 2015, appeal can lie only from such orders
passed by Commercial Court that are specifically
enumerated under Order XLIII C.P.C. and
Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
Head Notes
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section
13(1A), The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-
Order
XLIII,
The
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996- Section 37 -
Remedy of appeal under the provisions of
Act, 2015 is available against those orders
which are specifically and exhaustively