The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Savej, an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly circulating on his WhatsApp status a Pakistan-produced video containing derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and attributing blame for the Pulwama and Pahalgam terror attacks.
Justice Santosh Rai, while passing the order, noted that indefinite pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified, particularly when the conclusion of trial remains uncertain. According to LiveLaw, The Court also considered systemic factors such as overcrowding of prisons and the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21.
Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution alleged that Savej uploaded on his WhatsApp status a video manufactured in Pakistan, which had the potential to disturb communal harmony, disrupt social order, and threaten national security. The FIR invoked grave charges including “waging war against the Government of India” and acts endangering sovereignty and unity, alongside Section 13A UAPA.
As reported by LiveLaw, The State strongly opposed bail, stressing that circulating such inflammatory content is prejudicial to national integrity and that releasing the accused could embolden repetition of similar conduct.
Defence’s Case
On the other hand, according to a report in Bar&Bench, the defence highlighted several procedural lapses. It was an admitted fact that the accused had not created the video himself but merely circulated it, which raises serious doubts on whether offences of such gravity were actually attracted. Counsel further argued that:
- The recovery of the mobile phone was false and planted.
- No independent witnesses were examined during investigation, casting doubts on the credibility of evidence.
- The invoked provisions of BNS (Sections 353(2), 147, 152, 196, 197(1)(d)) and Section 13A UAPA were misapplied, since the essential ingredients of these offences were not fulfilled.
Court’s findings
The Court found merit in the submissions of the defence, especially in light of two factors:
- The applicant had no previous criminal record.
- The chargesheet was already filed, reducing the risk of tampering with the investigation.
Balancing the severity of the allegations with constitutional principles, the Court emphasised that bail remains the rule and jail the exception, even in serious cases, unless compelling circumstances justify prolonged detention. Consequently, Savej was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions such as non-tampering with evidence, non-threatening of witnesses, and refraining from unnecessary adjournments.
Significance of the order
The order is significant for several reasons. First, it highlights a recurring misuse of UAPA, where the mere act of circulating controversial content—without creation, intent, or demonstrable link to terrorist activity—is prosecuted as a grave national security offence. The invocation of provisions like “waging war” under BNS appears disproportionate and risks diluting the gravity of these offences by stretching them to cover relatively minor acts of online expression.
Second, the judgment reaffirms that Article 21 protects against arbitrary and prolonged incarceration, even in so-called “national security” cases. Courts are increasingly being forced to step in to balance State claims of security with the individual’s right to liberty.
Finally, the case exposes the overbreadth of investigative practices, where procedural safeguards—such as independent witnesses and credible recovery of evidence—are frequently ignored. The fact that the prosecution admitted that the accused had not created the video but only shared it further questions whether such conduct truly meets the threshold of “terrorist activity” or “waging war.”
While the High Court’s decision is a necessary check, it also reflects a deeper structural problem: the routine application of UAPA to low-level acts of dissent or controversial expression, clogging the justice system and undermining the exceptional purpose of anti-terror laws.
Related:
15-year-old Muslim teen died by suicide in Gujrat, alleged communal harassment