The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of distributing a controversial Pakistan-made video targeting the Prime Minister. The court cited “Right to Speedy Trial and Overcrowding of Jails” while approving the release.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man named Savej, who was accused of distributing a video allegedly made in Pakistan that contained derogatory comments about the Prime Minister of India.
Justice Santosh Rai, On September 9, 2025, while approving the bail application, highlighted the constitutional protections under Article 21 and pointed out the severe issue of overcrowding in prisons.
The case originated earlier this year at the Bhopa police station in Muzaffarnagar, and Savej was arrested on May 10, 2025. He faced multiple charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 147, 152, 196, and 197(1)(d), as well as Section 13(A) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
In opposition to the bail application, the Additional Government Advocate argued that the applicant’s innocence could not be determined before the trial and emphasized the serious nature of the offense.
The prosecution claimed that Savej’s distribution of the video, allegedly created in Pakistan, posed a threat to national security and public order.
Although Savej did not produce the video himself but merely shared it via his mobile phone, the State argued that such actions could disrupt communal harmony.
The prosecution also noted that a charge sheet had already been filed and warned that if released, Savej might engage in similar activities and misuse the freedom granted by bail.
Conversely, Savej’s counsel contended that he had not committed any of the alleged offenses, describing the FIR as false and intended to harass him. They asserted that Savej’s arrest was based solely on suspicion and that the purported recovery of a mobile phone was fabricated, with no independent witnesses consulted during the investigation.
The defense argued that the investigation was biased and led to charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and UAPA, which they claimed were inapplicable in this situation.
Emphasizing that Savej had no prior criminal history and had been in custody since May 10, 2025, his counsel assured the court that he would not misuse his bail if granted.
After reviewing the case, the court found no evidence of previous criminal behavior and noted the likelihood of delays in the trial process.
Justice Rai referenced the Supreme Court decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) and pointed out that undertrials often face extended detention due to overcrowded jails, which can hold five to six times their intended capacity.
The judge ultimately granted bail to Savej with strict conditions: he must not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or request adjournments when evidence is to be presented.
Additionally, he is required to be present during key trial phases, including charge framing and the recording of his statement under Section 313.
Any breach of these conditions, the court warned, would be considered an abuse of liberty and grounds for bail cancellation.
Case Title: Savej vs State of UP
Read Attachment