Court asks man to chant ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’, salute Tricolour in granting bail

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man accused of shouting a pro-Pakistan slogan and directed him to salute the national flag at a Bhopal police station 21 times and raise ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ slogan twice a month till the end of the trial.
The accused, identified as Faizal alias Faizan, was arrested in May following the registration of an FIR at Bhopal’s Misrod police station. He was charged under Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses imputations and assertions that can incite enmity between different groups. The prosecution contended that Faizan’s actions promoted discord and undermined the country’s integrity.
In the court’s ruling, Justice Paliwal stated that Faizan could be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000, along with one solvent surety of the same amount. This measure was put in place to ensure his regular appearance before the trial court throughout the legal proceedings.
Furthermore, the court imposed several unique conditions as part of the bail. Faizan is required to report to the Misrod police station on the first and fourth Tuesday of every month until the conclusion of his trial.
During these visits, he must salute the ‘national flag unfurled at the police station 21 times and chant the slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ twice. The court emphasised that these conditions were designed to instil in him a greater sense of pride for the country in which he was born and raised.
“After investigation, a charge sheet has been filed,” the court order noted.
The prosecution’s case rested on evidence including a video in which Faizan was seen openly shouting slogans supportive of Pakistan while denouncing India.
The state government’s counsel opposed the bail request, arguing that Faizan was a habitual offender with a concerning criminal history, which reportedly includes 14 previous cases against him.
In response, Faizan’s defence counsel maintained that he had been falsely implicated in this matter, insisting that the charges were unfounded. However, the court acknowledged the evidence presented, which suggested otherwise.