The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to Bhojpuri folk singer Neha Singh Rathore in a case arising from her social media posts criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi following the Pahalgam terror attack, making absolute the interim protection granted to her in January after noting she had cooperated with the investigation.
THE Supreme Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to Bhojpuri folk singer and activist Neha Singh Rathore, making absolute the interim protection from arrest it had granted her in January in connection with an FIR registered over her social media posts criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the government’s handling of the Pahalgam terror attack.
A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order after the State counsel informed that Rathore had complied with the Court’s earlier directions. She had appeared before the investigating authorities and her statement had been recorded, the counsel submitted. The Court, while granting relief, directed that Rathore must continue to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
What does ‘absolute anticipatory bail’ mean?
When a court grants interim protection from arrest, it serves as a temporary safeguard that remains in place only while the main petition is being heard. The accused cannot be arrested during this period, but the protection remains conditional and subject to the final outcome of the case. When a court makes such protection absolute, it converts this temporary relief into a final order of anticipatory bail. The protection is no longer provisional or dependent on further hearings, and the accused has complete protection from arrest in that particular case, provided they continue to fulfil any conditions imposed by the court.
In Rathore’s case, the Supreme Court had granted interim protection on January 7, 2026, directing her to appear before the investigating officer. Having noted her compliance, the Court has now converted this into full anticipatory bail.
The case originated from an FIR lodged at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow on April 27, 2025, following a complaint by Abhay Pratap Singh. The complaint alleged that Rathore had published a series of posts on X, formerly Twitter, in the days following the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam which claimed the lives of 26 tourists.
According to the prosecution, her posts alleged that the Prime Minister had visited Bihar and threatened Pakistan in order to garner votes in the name of nationalism, and that the Bharatiya Janata Party was seeking to polarise voters on Hindu-Muslim and India-Pakistan lines.
The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including sections 152, 196, 197, 302, and 353, as well as section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. During the investigation, sections 152 and 159 of the BNS were added.
Rathore had initially approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the FIR, but a division bench dismissed her petition on September 19, 2025.
The court held that the FIR disclosed cognisable offences warranting investigation and observed that the Prime Minister’s name had been used in a derogatory and disrespectful manner in the alleged posts. She then approached the Supreme Court challenging this order, but the Apex Court declined to interfere in October 2025, directing her to raise all legal issues at the stage of framing of charges.
Also read: Supreme Court rules post-bail conduct irrelevant in appeal against grant of bail
Rathore subsequently moved the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail. On December 5, 2025, Justice Brij Raj Singh rejected her plea. The High Court noted that Rathore had not cooperated with the investigation despite earlier directions and had failed to appear before the investigating officer as directed on September 26.
Observing that the tweets were made at a crucial and sensitive time following the terror attack, the court held that, “Although Article 19 of the Constitution of India gives the right of freedom to all citizens, the same is subject to reasonable restriction for public order, decency, or morality.”
Senior Advocate Kamal Kishore Sharma, appearing for Rathore before the Supreme Court, contended that her posts constituted political criticism protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He submitted that none of the offences alleged under the BNS were attracted, arguing that Rathore had neither incited violence nor spread false information.
Her counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imran Pratapgarhi v State of Gujarat (2025), which upheld poetry critical of government policies as protected speech.
The State, represented by Government Advocate V.K. Singh, countered that the timing and tenor of Rathore’s tweets made them far more serious than mere political dissent. Citing precedents including Ramji Lal Modi (1957), Kedar Nath Singh (1962), and Bhajan Lal (1992), the State argued that speech which undermines sovereignty, disrupts communal harmony, or disrespects constitutional authorities cannot claim absolute protection under Article 19.
When Rathore challenged the denial of anticipatory bail before the Supreme Court, the Bench on January 7, 2026, granted her interim protection from arrest. It directed her to appear before the investigating officer as and when called, with her first appearance scheduled for January 19. The Court cautioned that non-appearance would be viewed seriously. Having noted her compliance with these directions, the Bench has now made the interim protection absolute.
Case title: Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, SLP (Criminal) No. 21174/2025.
Leave a Reply