Punjab and Haryana HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail to UHBVNL Engineer Accused of Communal Remarks, Cites Societal Impact and Nascent Investigation

Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition by a Superintending Engineer booked under Section 196(1) BNS for allegedly making derogatory remarks against a community in a video that went viral on social media.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, on 20 May 2026, dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Geetu Ram Tanwar, a Superintending Engineer with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), who faces prosecution under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The FIR, bearing No. 90 dated 10 April 2026, was registered at Police Station Sonepat City, District Sonepat, Haryana. Justice Sumeet Goel, sitting singly, found no compelling ground to extend anticipatory bail, weighing the societal impact of the alleged conduct and the requirement of a fair investigation at a nascent stage. The petition was the petitioner's second attempt before the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The FIR and the Prosecution Case

The FIR arose from a video clip containing objectionable remarks against a particular community that circulated on social media and became viral in the Sonepat area. According to the prosecution, Geetu Ram Tanwar, while holding the post of Superintending Engineer in UHBVNL, participated in a conversation in which derogatory, inflammatory, and abusive remarks were allegedly made against members of a particular caste or community.

The prosecution alleged that the remarks had a tendency to promote disharmony and disturb communal peace, resulting in public resentment and tension in the area. Investigation was set into motion for offences punishable under Section 196(1) BNS, which deals with promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and similar factors.

Procedural History: A Second Petition After Two Earlier Dismissals

The petitioner's first anticipatory bail application before the High Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 20 April 2026. After that, he approached the court below seeking anticipatory bail, but that application was also dismissed vide order dated 23 April 2026. The present petition, CRM-M-23681-2026, was his second attempt before the High Court.

The State raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable, arguing it constituted a second petition for anticipatory bail without any substantial change in circumstances, and therefore failed both on procedural grounds and on merits. The State relied on a reply dated 9 May 2026, filed by way of affidavit of Malkeet Singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sonipat.

Petitioner's Contentions

Mr. Hemant Bassi, Senior Advocate, appearing with Ms. Gursimran Kaur and Ms. Saloni Chhabra for the petitioner, advanced several arguments. He contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated owing to deep-rooted departmental rivalry and personal vendetta by certain officers — named as Ranbir Deswal, Ashvini Kaushik, Satish Goyal, and Pardeep Kumar — against whom the petitioner had earlier reported acts of misconduct and administrative irregularities before higher authorities.

Senior counsel pointed to the petitioner's service record: nearly twenty-seven years with UHBVNL, consistently earning “Outstanding”, “Excellent”, and “Very Good” entries in his Annual Confidential Reports, along with various certificates of appreciation. It was also contended that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and had himself been subjected to harassment and victimisation by the group of officers who allegedly conspired to malign his image at the verge of his retirement.

On the merits of the FIR, senior counsel argued that the authenticity of the video clip was highly doubtful and appeared to have been manipulated with the aid of artificial intelligence and digital editing tools. The video was said to have been recorded in December 2025 but was deliberately circulated on social media after several months. Counsel further argued that the alleged conversation was private in nature among a limited group of departmental officers, and that mere utterance of certain words in a closed-door discussion could not attract Section 196(1) BNS, since there was no allegation that the petitioner made any public statement or committed any overt act intended to promote enmity or hatred between communities.

It was also submitted that the act of circulating the video on social media was not attributed to the petitioner; rather, it was the complainant side and the inimical officers who allegedly made the video viral. The petitioner, senior counsel said, had himself become a target of hostility and received threats to his life after the video's circulation. Despite not having committed any offence, the petitioner had tendered a public apology solely to pacify sentiments and maintain public harmony. The petitioner had already joined the investigation, and nothing incriminating remained to be recovered from him. His antecedents were clean except for two previous cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act in which he had already been acquitted.

State and Complainant's Opposition

The State, through Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana, opposed the petition both on maintainability and on merits. On maintainability, the State argued that a second petition without substantial change in circumstances deserved dismissal on that score alone. On merits, the State submitted that the petitioner had been found actively participating in a conversation wherein highly objectionable, derogatory, and abusive remarks were allegedly made against a particular caste or community, and that the contents of the video were explicit and could not be brushed aside at this stage.

The State further submitted that the investigation was at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for effective investigation, including examination of electronic devices, the source of recording, and the role of other persons involved. The remarks attributed to the petitioner were of such a nature as to have a tendency to disturb communal peace and promote hatred against a particular community, squarely attracting Section 196(1) BNS.

Mr. Shobhit Rapria, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (the complainant), also opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner, as a senior government officer, carried a great responsibility towards maintaining constitutional values and social harmony, and had been found actively participating in a conversation involving derogatory and abusive remarks against a particular caste community.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Sumeet Goel found that the material collected during investigation prima facie reflected that objectionable and derogatory remarks targeting a particular community had been made in the course of the conversation in which the petitioner was an active participant. The language allegedly used was not only abusive but was also prima facie capable of inciting resentment, hostility, and communal disharmony against a specific community.

The court addressed the petitioner's argument that the conversation was private in nature. It held that this contention could not, at this stage, dilute the seriousness of the allegations, particularly when the contents had entered the public domain and allegedly generated communal tension in the area.

The court observed that the petitioner, as Superintending Engineer in UHBVNL, was a senior public functionary entrusted with responsibilities affecting the public at large. A person occupying such a position is expected to maintain restraint, uphold constitutional morality, and exhibit sensitivity towards all sections of society irrespective of caste, creed, or religion. The use of derogatory and abusive remarks against a particular community, when allegedly made by a public servant holding a position of authority, was found to assume greater significance and carry a potential social impact.

On the question of intention, the court held that the argument that the petitioner had no intention to create communal disharmony was a matter requiring thorough investigation and could not be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of considering an anticipatory bail plea.

The Speech Act Theory and the Weight of Words

Justice Goel invoked the “Speech Act Theory” delineated by John Searle and J.L. Austin to explain why spoken words carry legal and social consequence beyond their literal meaning. The court distinguished between the locutionary act (the basic physical act of saying something), the illocutionary act (the core purpose behind the words, such as promising, warning, or commanding), and the perlocutionary act (the effect or consequence the utterance has on the listener, including whether the listener is persuaded, alarmed, or convinced).

The court observed that words have a consequential meaning and carry an emotional, psychological, and even physical impact. It noted that any unwitting or unintentional remarks passed against a community, repeated articulations, or even a one-time intense diatribe can have cascading ramifications. Against an individual, such injury caused by words could still be addressed, but against a community, the injury multiplies.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and Another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977. The Supreme Court had held in that case that in matters containing serious allegations, the High Court ought not to exercise its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. The Supreme Court had also clarified that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and foremost consideration at the anticipatory bail stage is the prima facie case put up against the accused, followed by the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment.

Applying this framework, Justice Goel found that there was no material on record to hold that a prima facie case was not made out against the petitioner. The material on record and the preliminary investigation appeared to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. The investigation was at a nascent stage, the allegations were not confined merely to the utterance of objectionable words but also extended to the alleged misuse of official position, and the possibility of interference with investigation could not be ruled out.

The court held that while considering a plea for anticipatory bail, it must equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests, reckoning with the magnitude and nature of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the need for fair and free investigation, and the deeper and wider impact of the alleged conduct on society. The petitioner's good service record could not, by itself, create a ground for grant of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Outcome

Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed CRM-M-23681-2026 as devoid of merits on 20 May 2026. The court directed that nothing said in the order shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case or the investigation. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.