In a notable ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to a man accused of shouting the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad, Hindustan Murdabad,” under specific conditions designed to emphasize national allegiance. The accused, Faizan, must salute the national flag 21 times twice a month while raising the slogan “Bharat Mata Ki Jai.”
Faizan was arrested in Bhopal following an FIR filed on May 17 this year. He had been in detention since his arrest. The prosecution alleged that his actions were intended to incite enmity between different groups and were detrimental to national harmony and integration. During the bail hearing, the prosecution claimed to possess video evidence of Faizan shouting the slogans; however, the case experienced delays due to the absence of this evidence in court.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, while granting bail, outlined several conditions for Faizan’s release. He must report to the local police station between 10 am and noon on the first and fourth Tuesday of every month until the trial concludes. During these visits, he is required to salute the national flag 21 times while proclaiming “Bharat Mata Ki Jai.” The bail bond was set at ₹50,000.
The court noted the delays in the case, attributed to the backlog at the Forensic Cyber Lab in Bhopal, where over 3,400 cases await examination. Ashok Khalko, director of the lab, informed the court that only four personnel were available to handle the cases, prompting the court to urge the state government to bolster staff resources for timely reports.
Faizan’s attorney, Hakim Khan, contended that his client was falsely implicated, despite acknowledging that Faizan was recorded shouting the controversial slogans. Conversely, government advocate C K Mishra argued that Faizan was a habitual offender with 14 previous criminal cases against him. Mishra asserted that Faizan’s actions reflected a blatant disregard for his country, suggesting that if he was dissatisfied with India, he should consider living elsewhere.
The court’s unusual conditions for bail highlight the complexities of balancing individual rights with national sentiments in contentious cases. As Faizan prepares to navigate the legal proceedings ahead, the ruling sets a precedent for similar cases involving expressions of political dissent in India.
