Parveen Singh Manhas v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-34460-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34460-2025 Reserved on: 11.09.2025 Pronounced on: 16.09.2025 Parveen Singh Manhas ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
effected. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage, but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 10. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the witnesses, hampered the investigation, or, despite being called to join the investigation, did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, which is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order. 11. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 12. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. Interim order dated 04.07.2025 is made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 13 18.06.2025 Cyber Crime, Pathankot 196(1), 197(1), 353(1), 353(2) of BNS, 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Vide order dated 04.07.2025, the petitioner was granted interim bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is continuing till date. 3. In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the petitioner declares that he has no criminal antecedents. However, as per paragraph 9 of the status report, the petitioner has following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated 1. 49 09.06.2015 2. 14 03.07.2025 Offenses 295-A IPC 196(1), 197(1), 353(1), 353(2) of BNS, 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 Police Station Shahpur Kandi, Distt. Pathankot Cyber Crime, Pathankot 4. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: “That the brief facts of the case are that: i) Incharge Social Media Cyber Cell Pathankot gave the statement to SHO Cyber Cell Pathankot that while conducting patrolling on Social media, it was observed that Parveen Manhas S/o Raghunath Manhas resident of Haryal Tehsil and District Pathankot uploaded posts against the Muslim and JYOTI 2025.09.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-34460-2025 link communities from his Facebook URL https://www.facebook.com/photo.php? Sikh https://www.facebook.com/parveen.manhas.16. ii) The details of the said posts are as follows: Facebook Post 1: URL Link: fbid=640660596 090427&set=pb.100004394771314.- 2207520000&type=3 From the said Facebook account, on 09.07.2016, a photo was uploaded on Facebook against Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, which stated "ISIS, Muslim Terrorists and Khalistan-Both are terrorist groups: Facebook Post 2 URL Link: https://www.facebook.com/parveen.manhas 16/posts/2 873475396142258?ref=embed post From the said Facebook account, on 21.07.2024, a post was uploaded on Facebook, writing and demanding from the Deputy Commissioner, Pathankot, that orders be issued to external shopkeepers and hawkers selling food items to display boards outside their shops stating that they are Muslims, so that the religion of Hindus is not violated and that the Satvik worship of Hindus during the month of Sawan can be completed peacefully. Facebook Post 3 URL Link: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1029221111932518 from the said Facebook account, on 22.07.2024, a video was shared on Facebook in which a press reporter is seen questioning the owner of a sweet shop whose real name is Fazal Ahmad, but he has named his shop "Neelam Sweets." The shopkeeper also stated that there is no person by the name of Neelam in his family and that he has been running the shop under the name "Neelam" for the past 25 years. By uploading such posts, Praveen Manhas son of Raghunath Singh resident of Hariyal District Pathankot, has hurt the sentiments of Muslim and Sikh communities, which can incite people from the Muslim and radical Sikh community and disturb the law and order situation. The screenshots of the said posts are attached as Annexure-R1. 6. That SHO Cyber Cell Pathankot after receiving the complaint with screenshots and pen drive video of the shared post, by going through the content found that he has uploaded three posts/videos against the Muslim and Sikh communities, which incite crimes against these communities and hurt their religious sentiments. These posts and videos on social media provoke communal hatred. Such posts/videos promote hatred or ill-will among different religious communities and disturb public peace, leading to tensions, enmity, hatred, and malice among various religious groups. They create fear and danger in public spaces and incite the commission of offences against the Muslim and Sikh communities. As such offences under sections 196(1), 197(1), 353(1) 353(2) BNS 66 IT Act 2000 are made out and T PAL kot (Pbccordingly, the present FIR was registered.” 5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report, however, admits the JYOTI 2025.09.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-34460-2025 fact that petitioner joined investigation. 8. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: “7. That there is direct evidence on which the petitioner has shared the post from his facebook account and after verifying his previous posts, the petitioner was arrayed as accused and also request to facebook regarding the same verification has also been sent. 12.That it is humbly submitted that there are serious allegations and considering gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner therefore in the light of facts of the present case, this petition may be dismissed as it does not deserve to be allowed being devoid of any merits.” REASONING: 9. Recovery of the mobile phone which was used in the crime has already been
Decision
when called upon to do so. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16.09.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. JYOTI 2025.09.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3