Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Singer Accused of Provocative, Communal Remarks; Says Speech Had Potential to Inflame Public Order
Case Name: Sandeep Singh Attal @ Sandvi vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-64435-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the plea for anticipatory bail filed by singer–journalist Sandeep Singh Attal, finding that the accusations of circulating inflammatory, caste-targeted, and communal remarks including statements against women of the Purvanchal community raised serious concerns of public order. The Court held that custodial interrogation was essential given digital evidence, alleged intimidation of witnesses, and the potential societal impact of the speech.
Summary: The FIR alleged that the petitioner gave a provocative recorded interview that went viral online, containing derogatory assertions about migrant workers from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and insulting remarks directed at women of the Purvanchal community. Electronic material produced by the complainant included the interview, which the police stated showed abusive and inflammatory expressions. A supporting memorandum was signed by several members of the Purvanchal community.
The State relied on a detailed affidavit of the ACP, pointing to (i) the viral circulation of the video, (ii) public resentment and communal tension triggered by the content, and (iii) a separate incident where the petitioner and others allegedly waylaid and intimidated two individuals and snatched a mobile phone. The State stressed that the petitioner had a criminal antecedent under similar sections.
The Court invoked speech-act analysis, noting that utterances must be assessed not only for their literal meaning but also for their intention and their effect on the audience. The allegations, it held, went beyond a mere verbal quarrel and reflected conduct capable of provoking disharmony between communities. The Court emphasised that Section 482 BNSS protects the innocent from harassment but cannot be used to shield individuals against whom serious, prima facie material exists.
The Court concluded that the nature of allegations, the digital trail, the stated public impact, and the need to identify other involved persons made custodial interrogation indispensable.
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the accusations and supporting material disclosed a serious case warranting full, unhindered investigation. Granting anticipatory bail, it observed, would compromise the ability of the police to examine electronic evidence, trace co-participants, and assess the petitioner’s role in content likely to disturb communal harmony. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail adjudication and would not prejudice the trial.