In a strongly reasoned order dealing with allegations of hate speech and communal targeting, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of journalist-singer Sandeep Singh Attal @ Sandvi, holding that the accusations against him are serious, supported by digital material, and capable of disturbing public order, thus requiring custodial interrogation for a fair investigation.
Justice Sumeet Goel, deciding on December 2, 2025, held that the petitioner’s conduct, as reflected in the FIR, witness statements, and electronic evidence, prima facie shows active participation in creating hostility, resentment, and communal disharmony directed at the Purvanchal community and migrant labourers in Ludhiana.
The petition was filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, seeking pre-arrest protection in FIR No. 270/2025 registered for offences under Sections 304, 196, 352, 353(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The FIR: Allegations of abusive language, threats, intimidation, and derogatory gendered slurs
The case originates from an FIR (No. 270 dated 21.10.2025, P.S. Division No. 7, Ludhiana) lodged by complainant Braj Bhushan Singh, who belongs to the Purvanchal community. He alleged that:
- Routine verbal abuse and humiliation: Both accused regularly insulted and abused Purvanchal migrants, particularly labourers and roadside vendors.
- Threats, blackmail, and intimidation of poor vendors: Co-accused Machan allegedly threatened, intimidated, and blackmailed poor workers, with the petitioner implicated in this broader course of conduct.
- Derogatory and gendered remarks about Purvanchal women: The complaint asserts that both accused made explicitly derogatory remarks about the women of the Purvanchal community, causing widespread anger and indignation.
- Speeches provoking inter-community hostility: They allegedly delivered provocative and hateful speeches aimed at creating friction between Punjabi and Purvanchal communities.
To reinforce the credibility of the allegations, the complainant submitted a memorandum signed by numerous members of the community, demonstrating collective concern and the seriousness of the impact.
Digital Evidence: The pen drive and the viral interview
During the inquiry before registration of the FIR, the complainant handed over a pen-drive containing a video interview recorded by co-accused Machan.
Justice Goel notes that this digital material revealed:
- Explicit communal targeting: The petitioner allegedly claimed that migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar bring large quantities of ganja to Punjab and sell it in Ludhiana.
- Gendered slurs and moral policing: He allegedly stated that women of the Purvanchal community are involved in flesh trade.
- Statements projecting migrants as a threat: He purportedly claimed that migrants are now “ruling Punjab”, suggesting cultural takeover or demographic dominance.
- Viral circulation and public reaction: The enquiry showed that the hate-filled interview went viral on social media, resulting in widespread resentment among the Purvanchal community and creating a potential for law-and-order disturbance.
These statements, the Court noted, became viral on social media, generating substantial resentment within the community and creating a potential for law-and-order disruption.
Alleged incident of waylaying and mobile phone snatching
The Court also relied on the statement of witness Nitin Kumar recorded under Section 180 BNSS. He stated that on September 24, 2025, the petitioner, co-accused Machan, and some Nihang persons:
- surrounded and threatened him and one Mukesh Kumar, and
- snatched his mobile phone
This aspect, the Court observed, showed that the petitioner’s alleged conduct was not limited to speech-related offences, but extended to physical intimidation and obstruction.
Petitioner’s Defence: False implication and cross-version case
Counsel for the petitioner advanced a series of arguments:
- False implication with no direct involvement: The petitioner claimed he had been falsely roped in through a supplementary statement.
- Case arising out of cross-versions: It was argued that the incident was merely a verbal altercation outside the police station between Punjabi and Purvanchal groups, leading to FIRs from both sides.
- No recovery needed; no threat of absconsion: He contended that:
- nothing incriminating was left to be recovered,
- custodial interrogation was unnecessary,
- he was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
- Allegations vague and malicious: The defence insisted that the statements attributed to him were vague, motivated, and exaggerated.
Justice Goel noted these submissions but found them insufficient in light of the investigation material.
State’s Stand: Strong incriminating material, witness statements, and criminal antecedents
The State vigorously opposed the plea, pointing to:
- Prima facie digital evidence of hate speech: The viral interview contained abusive, humiliating, caste-targeted, and communal remarks.
- Witness statements supporting intimidation: Nitin Kumar’s testimony confirmed physical intimidation and mobile snatching.
- Criminal antecedents of the petitioner: The petitioner was earlier named in FIR No. 118/2021 (Mohali) involving offences under Sections 120-B, 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298 IPC, all related to communal tension and public order.
- Need to identify others involved: The State argued custodial interrogation was essential to-
- identify other co-participants,
- verify the source of recordings,
- trace circulation patterns,
- recover devices or data.
The State argued that custodial interrogation was essential to identify other persons involved, recover material, and scrutinise electronic evidence. Justice Goel accepted the State’s submissions.
Court’s Reasoning: Speech, social harm, and the public order threshold
Application of Speech Act Theory: The judgment is notable for introducing Speech Act Theory (by Austin and Searle) into the anticipatory bail context. Justice Goel observed: “Utterances must be examined not just for their literal meaning but for the communicative intention and the action they convey.” (Para 6)
He emphasised the three-layered nature of speech:
- Locutionary act — the words spoken
- Illocutionary act — the intention behind the words
- Perlocutionary act — the effect on the audience
Applying this framework, the Court found that the petitioner’s alleged statements had a perlocutionary capacity to provoke hostility and disturb communal peace.
Material not confined to a “roadside altercation”: The Court held that:
- This was not a minor quarrel or isolated outburst.
- It involved systematic targeting, with real potential to disturb public order, community relations, and societal peace.
Supplementary naming no ground to dilute evidence: The defence argument that the petitioner was named only through a supplementary statement was rejected as insufficient to discard the digital and testimonial material emerging from the investigation.
Seriousness of offence and societal impact: The Court stressed that the alleged speech-
- was not limited to individual harm,
- but created a sense of insecurity within the community at large,
- required a strong judicial response to prevent recurrence.
Necessity of custodial interrogation: The Court relied on State v. Anil Sharma (1997), reiterating that “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented… interrogation with the protection of pre-arrest bail often reduces to a mere ritual.” (Para 9)
Justice Goel held that:
- effective investigation requires custodial questioning,
- particularly when electronic evidence and multiple actors are involved,
- a pre-arrest bail order would severely undermine the inquiry.
Conclusion: Anticipatory bail denied, petition dismissed
Given the gravity of allegations, the substantial digital evidence, and the requirement of custodial interrogation, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve anticipatory bail. It held:
- A prima facie case is clearly made out.
- The material gathered justifies custodial interrogation.
- No grounds exist to believe the petitioner was falsely implicated.
- Granting anticipatory bail would impede effective investigation and undermine communal harmony.
Accordingly, the Court ordered:
“The material on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.” (Para 9)
“Considering the gravity of allegations, the nature of the evidence collected so far and the requirement of effective investigation, and the necessity of the custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.” (Para 10)
All pending applications were also disposed of, with the Court cautioning that its observations should not be construed as findings on the merits of the case.
The complete judgment may be read here.
Related:
A New Silence: The Supreme Court’s turn toward non-interference in hate-speech cases
Unveiling the diverse impact of Hate Speech: From elections to escalating violence
India’s Struggle for Social Harmony: Challenges Amidst Surge in Hate Speech
Three separate benches of the Indian Supreme Court interrogate hate speech
CJP writes to Minorities Commission over repeated attacks on Muslims