Lucknow University Professor Granted Interim Anticipatory Bail Over Pahalgam Remarks: A Legal Analysis Under BNSS

The case arose from a social media comment allegedly made by the Lucknow University professor. The remark was perceived as insensitive or inflammatory concerning the Pahalgam region, leading to a police complaint and registration of an First Information Report (FIR) under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and possibly the IT Act.

Given the sensitivity of the matter, the professor apprehended arrest. He immediately approached the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, which corresponds to the old Section 438 CrPC.

Key legal questions raised:

• Whether the remarks constituted a bcognizable offencebd justifying immediate arrest.
• Whether the nature of the accusation required custodial interrogation or could be investigated without it.
• The balance between right to free speech and public order under the law.

The court, after hearing arguments, granted interim anticipatory bail, directing the professor to cooperate with the investigation and not to tamper with evidence.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973. The provision for anticipatory bail is now contained in Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC).

In this case, the professorb9s anticipatory bail application was filed before the High Court, as the allegations involved multiple serious sections. The court granted interim protection, meaning the protection was initially given for a limited period, after which the matter would be heard again for confirmation of the final order.

While granting the interim relief, the court relied on established legal principles from the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court:

1. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1: The Constitution Bench held that anticipatory bail is not ordinarily time-bound and can continue till the end of trial unless special circumstances justify limiting it. The court also clarified that the grant of anticipatory bail must consider the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, the flight risk, and the possibility of tampering with evidence.
2. Bharat Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court): The High Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not barred merely because cognizance has been taken or a charge-sheet has been filed. The key factor is whether the factual matrix still supports protection from arrest.
3. Anand Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2023): This order reinforced that the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail is a discretionary, fact-sensitive exercise. The court must evaluate the nature of the offence, the likelihood of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing from justice.

In the present case, the court found that the professor had no criminal antecedents, was cooperating with the investigation, and that the alleged remarks did not prima facie constitute a grave public order offence that required immediate custodial interrogation.

The interim anticipatory bail was granted subject to several conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation and the applicantb9s availability:

• Cooperation with the investigation: The professor must appear before the investigating officer as and when called.
• No tampering with evidence: He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• No travel without permission: The applicant is required to surrender his passport and not leave the country without prior permission from the court.
• No similar remarks: He shall not repeat any communication that could be construed as inflammatory or contemptuous of any community.

These conditions are standard in similar speech-related cases handled by the Allahabad High Court.

Not every applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. As per the principles laid down in Brajpal v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2026), anticipatory bail is not maintainable in complaint cases where the arrest is not immediately apprehended. The court also clarified that mere filing of a criminal case does not entitle a person to pre-arrest bail; there must be a real and genuine apprehension of arrest.

The Allahabad High Court has also identified situations where anticipatory bail can still be considered even after charge-sheet or cognizance, such as when allegations are patently absurd or evidence is inadmissible. However, if the nature of the offence is heinous (e.g., sedition, terrorist acts), or the accused is a flight risk, the court may deny relief.

In the Pahalgam case, the court was satisfied that the allegations, while serious, did not fall into the category of heinous offences that would warrant immediate denial of bail.

If you or someone you know is facing an FIR for speech-related allegations in Lucknow, Allahabad, or any other district of Uttar Pradesh, here is a step-by-step guide:

1. Do not ignore the police summons: Failure to appear may lead to a warrant being issued against you.
2. Contact a criminal lawyer in Lucknow immediately: A lawyer can assess the strength of the case and advise on whether to file for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court or the High Court.
3. File an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS: This must be done before arrest. The court must hear the public prosecutor and decide within 30 days.
4. Gather evidence of good conduct: Letters of no criminal antecedents, character certificates, and proof of employment can strengthen the case.
5. Consider filing a quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers of High Court): If the FIR is manifestly ill-founded or lacks basic ingredients, the High Court can quash the FIR entirely.

Advocate Onkar Pandey is a practicing lawyer at the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench with over 25 years of experience in criminal law, bail matters, FIR quashing, and family law. Enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (No. UP/4825/1999), he provides expert legal guidance to clients across Uttar Pradesh from his chamber at A-406, High Court, Lucknow. For a consultation on anticipatory bail or criminal cases, contact Advocate Onkar Pandey at +91 98392 71553.