Shri Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai and Anr. vs State of Sikkim
- Court
- High Court of Sikkim
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
CNR No: SKHC01-000025-2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. M.C. No. 01 of 2026
1. Shri Bikram Rai alias Bikramadi Rai,
S/o Krishna Rai,
Aged 42 years,
Resident of Newer Balasen Tea Estate,
Sonada, Darjeeling,
West Bengal – 734203.
2. Shri Subash Mani Singh,
Son of Shri Mani Kumar Singh,
Aged 49 years,
Resident of Relli Road near Mani Garage,
District Kalimpong, West Bengal.
….. Petitioners
Versus
State of Sikkim.
….. Respondent
Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
{Quashing of FIR No. 80 of 2025 lodged against the petitioners at Sadar Police Station at
Gangtok, charge-sheet no.183/SHO/SPS and consequential proceeding before the
Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, Gangtok, Sikkim}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tara Devi
Chettri, Ms. Niyashi Rai and Ms. Sohitya Kala
Limboo, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor f or
the Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With
Crl. M.C. No.07 of 2026
CNR No.: SKHC01-000069-2026
Noel Sharma
S/o Siddhi Prasad Sharma
Aged about 39 years
Permanent Resident of Daramdin,
2
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
Lungchok, Soreng, Sikkim,
At present residing at Lingding,
Gangtok, 737102.
….. Petitioner
Versus
State of Sikkim
….. Respondent
Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
{Quashing of FIR No. 80 of 2025 lodged against the petitioners at Sadar Police Station at
Gangtok and consequential charge-sheet no.183/SHO/SPS and proceeding before the
Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, Gangtok, Sikkim}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Abhinav Kant Jha, Advocate for the Petitioner
(through V.C.).
Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor f or
the Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 06.11.2026
Date of Judgment : 06.11.2026
Date on which uploaded : 07.11.2026
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
For brevity the facts of the cases have been culled out
herein below:
1. An invitation by “Gorkha Seva Sena” based in Darjeeling,
West Bengal to join them in commemorating “a historic milestone
th
and participating in a vital civic dialogue” on the “50 Sikkim State
Day Celebration and Constitutional Consultation” to participate in
3
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
th
the spirit of justice, unity and constitutional duty on Sunday 15
June, at Town Hall, Naya Bazar, Kurseong led to the filing of a First
Information Report (FIR) dated 06.06.2025 by the Principal
Secretary to the Hon‟ble Chief Minister against Noel Sharma,
Bikramadi Rai and Subash Mani Singh.
The First Information Report
2. The FIR against the petitioners alleged “serious offences”
committed by them against the State and the public at large. It
was alleged:
“ All of whom are associated with an organization
named Gorkha Seva Sena, based in Darjeeling, West
Bengal.
The above-mentioned individuals have, without
any lawful authority, permission, or approval, illegally
used the official logo and theme of the Government of
Sikkim in an invitation card issued by their organization
for an event proposed to be held on the subject:
“Constitutional Legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim
Unification.”
This is to bring to your kind notice that the
official logo and theme of the Government of Sikkim,
commemorating 50 years of Sikkim's Statehood, was
officially notified by the State Government through
Notification No. 75/Home/2024, dated 24.09.2024. The
use of the commemorative logo and there is strictly for
official purposes by Government of Sikkim
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, and
prohibits private or unauthorized use.
The illegal reproduction and use of this emblem
and theme in materials promoting an extremely
sensitive and potentially inflammatory topic─such as
the supposed constitutional unification of Darjeeling
and Sikkim─has grave implications. It not only
misleads the public into believing that the Government
of Sikkim is associated with or endorses the
organization and its agenda, but also has the potential
to provoke enmity between communities (people of
4
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
Sikkim and Darjeeling), disrupt public order, create law
and order issue and undermine faith in the integrity
and neutrality of the State Government.
Their conduct constitutes a criminal conspiracy
and is in clear violation of the following provisions of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
Section 152: Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and
integrity of India.
Section 196: Promotion of enmity between groups
which may lead to disruption of public tranquillity.
Section 336: Forgery for the purpose of harming
reputation or misleading the public.
Additionally, the act is punishable under the
Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act,
1950, specifically Section 3, which bars the use of
government insignia and names for unauthorized
purposes.
I firmly believe that this illegal act has been
committed with the deliberate intent to mislead the
public regarding the State Government's stand,
provoke disharmony and confusion on a highly
sensitive issue, and exploit a government symbol to
falsely lend legitimacy to a politically motivated
narrative.
Given the seriousness of the matter, I request
you to register an FIR immediately and initiate prompt
investigation and prosecution against Mr. Noel Sharma,
Mr. Bikramadi Rai, and Mr. Subash Mani Singh, in
accordance with the above-cited provisions of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other applicable
laws.
……….. ”
3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR under sections 152,
196 and 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the BNS), a
charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution. The charge-sheet
5
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
indicts all the three above named persons and charges them under
sections 152, 196(1), 336(4), and 61 (2) of the BNS.
Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528, BNSS,
2023
4. Bikramadi Rai, Subash Mani Singh and Noel Sharma have
preferred the present petitions seeking to invoke the inherent
powers of this Court under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS) for quashing the FIR No.
80/2025 dated 06.06.2025 lodged at Sadar Police Station, Gangtok
and charge-sheet No.183/SHO/SPS dated 01.09.2025 as well as
the proceedings of Sessions Trial Case No.10/2025 pending before
the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division-I,
Gangtok, Sikkim.
5. The parameters and contours of section 528 of the BNSS,
2023 have been well explained in several judgments of the
Supreme Court. The provision saves the inherent powers of this
Court by providing “ nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit
or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this
Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ”
6. While examining the corresponding law by the Supreme
Court i.e. section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors . vs.
6
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
1
Bhajan Lal & Ors . has after elaborate discussions on the
provision and the various judgments passed by the Supreme Court
summarized categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not may be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
“102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
1
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
7
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge. ”
7. The Supreme Court thereafter gave a note of caution to the
effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that to in the
rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and
that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or
caprice.
8. A decade earlier the Supreme Court in State of West
2
Bengal & Ors. vs Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors . opined that:
“ 21. The position which emerges from these
decisions and the other decisions which are
discussed by brother A.N. Sen is that the
2
(1982) 1 SCC 561
8
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
condition precedent to the commencement of
investigation under Section 157 of the Code is
that the FIR must disclose, prima facie, that a
cognizable offence has been committed. It is
wrong to suppose that the police have an
unfettered discretion to commence investigation
under Section 157 of the Code. Their right of
enquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason
to suspect the commission of a cognizable
offence and they cannot, reasonably, have
reason so to suspect unless the FIR, prima facie,
discloses the commission of such offence. If that
condition is satisfied, the investigation must go
on and the rule in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR
1945 PC 18 : (1944) 71 IA 203 : 217 IC 1] will
apply. The court has then no power to stop the
investigation, for to do so would be to trench
upon the lawful power of the police to investigate
into cognizable offences. On the other hand, if
the FIR does not disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence, the court would be justified in
quashing the investigation on the basis of the
information as laid or received. ”
9. While the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners
submits that the present case squarely falls within the exception
carved out by Bhajan Lall (supra) the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submit that none of the exceptions would assist the
petitioners to dislodge the FIR and the criminal investigation.
10. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners are
protected by the Constitution itself and they have liberty of thought
and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India, 1950. It is submitted that free expression of thoughts and
views by individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a
healthy civilized society and without freedom of expression of
thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life given by
Article 21 of the Constitution. It is submitted that in a healthy
democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by individual
9
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another
point of view, even if a large number of persons dislike the views
expressed by another. The right of a person to express their views
must be respected and protected.
11. To support his contention the learned Senior Counsel relies
3
upon Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr . and
relies upon paragraph 53 thereof which is quoted herein verbatim.
53.1. Sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS makes a
significant departure from Section 154CrPC. It provides
that when information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence which is made punishable for 3 years
or more but less than 7 years is received by an officer in
charge of a police station, with the prior permission of a
superior officer as mentioned therein, the police officer is
empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain
whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in
the matter. However, under Section 154CrPC, as held in
Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2
SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] , only a limited
preliminary inquiry is permissible to ascertain whether
the information received discloses a cognizable offence.
Moreover, a preliminary inquiry can be made under
CrPC only if the information does not disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry. Sub-section (3) of Section 173
BNSS is an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 173.
In the category of cases covered by sub-section (3), a
police officer is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry
to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for
proceeding in the matter even if the information received
discloses commission of any cognizable offence.
53.2. Under sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS, after
holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to a
conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he
should immediately register an FIR and proceed to
investigate. But, if he is of the view that a prima facie
case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately
inform the first informant-complainant so that he can
avail a remedy under sub-section (4) of Section 173.
3
(2026) 1 SCC 721
10
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
53.3. In case of the offence punishable under Section
196 BNS to decide whether the words, either spoken or
written or by sign or by visible representations or through
electronic communication or otherwise, lead to the
consequences provided in the section, the police officer
to whom information is furnished will have to read or
hear the words written or spoken, and by taking the
same as correct, decide whether an offence under
Section 196 is made out. Reading of written words, or
hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine
whether the contents make out a case of the
commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the
case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299
and 302 BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the
information received by an officer in charge of the police
station makes out a cognizable offence, the officer must
consider the meaning of the spoken or written words.
This act on the part of the police officer will not amount
to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible
under sub-section (1) of Section 173.
53.4. The police officers must abide by the Constitution
and respect its ideals. The philosophy of the Constitution
and its ideals can be found in the Preamble itself. The
Preamble lays down that the people of India have
solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign,
socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure all
its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is
one of the ideals of our Constitution. Article 19(1)(a)
confers a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of
speech and expression. The police machinery is a part
of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being citizens,
are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound
to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression
conferred on all citizens.
53.5. Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution carves
out an exception to the fundamental right guaranteed
under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19. If there is
a law covered by clause (2), its operation remains
unaffected by sub-clause (a) of clause (1). We must
remember that laws covered by clause (2) are protected
by way of an exception provided they impose a
reasonable restriction. Therefore, when an allegation is
of the commission of an offence covered by the law
referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if sub-section (3) of
Section 173 is applicable, it is always appropriate to
conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a
prima facie case is made out to proceed against the
accused. This will ensure that the fundamental rights
guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article
19 remain protected. Therefore, in such cases, the
11
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
higher police officer referred to in sub-section (3) of
Section 173 must normally grant permission to the police
officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
53.6. When an offence punishable under Section 196
BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words
will have to be considered based on standards of
reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous
individuals and not based on the standards of people
with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the
spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis
of the standards of people who always have a sense of
insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a
threat to their power or position.
53.7. There is no absolute rule that when the
investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court
cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or under Section 482CrPC
equivalent to Section 528 BNSS. When the High Court,
in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on
the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it
can always interfere even though the investigation is at
the nascent stage. It all depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the
offence. There is no such blanket rule putting an
embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR
only on the ground that the investigation was at a
nascent stage.
53.8. Free expression of thoughts and views by
individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a
healthy civilised society. Without freedom of expression
of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified
life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In a
healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts
expressed by an individual or group of individuals must
be countered by expressing another point of view. Even
if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed
by another, the right of the person to express the views
must be respected and protected. Literature including
poetry, dramas, films, stage shows including stand-up
comedy, satire and art, make the lives of human beings
more meaningful. The Courts are duty-bound to uphold
and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. Sometimes, we, the Judges, may
not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to
uphold the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). We
Judges are under an obligation to uphold the
Constitution and respect its ideals. If the police or
executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
12
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to step in and
protect the fundamental rights. There is no other
institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of the
citizens.
53.9. 75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be
so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a
poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment,
such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to
animosity or hatred amongst different communities.
Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate
expressions of view in the public domain which is so
fundamental to a free society. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
12. Therefore, the fundamental and only question that seems to
arise in this proceeding is whether the invitation by the “Gorkha
Seva Sena” under the name of Noel Sharma, Bikramadi Rai and
Subash Mani Singh-the petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 01 of 2026 and
Crl. M.C. No. 07 of 2026, to join them for commemorating a
th
historic milestone of “50 Sikkim State Day Celebration and
Constitutional Consultation by participating in a vital civic dialogue
on the constitutional legality of the Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification”
would draw the rigors of the provisions of the BNS charged against
the petitioners?
13 . While this is the sole question that seems to arise in the
present case there is an additional fact whose attention has been
drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the use of the
official logo of the Government of Sikkim in the printed invitation.
It is alleged that the illegal reproduction and the use of the official
logo in materials promoting an extremely sensitive and potentially
inflammatory topic such as the supposed constitutional unification
of Darjeeling and Sikkim has grave implications.
13
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
Consideration
14. In Imran Pratap Gadi (supra) the issue revolved around a
poem recited in the background of a video clip. The video clip was
posted on social media by the appellant therein. The text of the
poem had been reproduced in the judgment and it reads thus:
“2. ……………..
15. The appellant therein was a Member of the Rajya
Sabha. The FIR alleged that on the occasion of the birthday of one
Altaf Ghafarbhai Khafi, a Member of the Municipal Corporation of
Jamnagar a mass wedding programme was held at Sanjari
Education and Charitable Trust. The said Municipal Councilor
invited the appellant to the function. A video of the event was
made. The appellant posted the video on the social media platform
„X‟ from his verified account. The video had the recitation of the
poem reproduced above in the background. The allegation in the
complaint was that the spoken words of the poem incite people of
one community against another, and it hurts a community's
14
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
religious and social sentiments. It was alleged that the song had
lyrics that incited people of other communities to fight for the
community's rights. It was alleged that the video posted by the
appellant created enmity between two communities at the national
level and hatred towards each other. It was further alleged that it
had a detrimental effect on national unity.
16. The appellants filed a petition under section 528 of the
BNSS read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
quashing the said FIR. The learned Single Judge rejected the
petition by holding that as the investigation is at a very nascent
stage, interference cannot be made in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State
4
of Maharashtra . The matter thus travelled to the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court examined the poem and concluded that
the poem had nothing to do with any religion, community, region
or race. That by no stretch of imagination, the contents affect
national integration; that it did not jeopardize the sovereignty,
unity, integrity or security of India; that it suggested that while
fighting to secure our rights if we are met with injustice, we will
face it with law; that we will use our tears as flames to light up all
paths; that it gives a warning to the throne (the rulers). It states
that if the bodies of our loved ones are a threat to the rulers, we
will bury our loved ones happily; that it preaches non-violence. It
says that if the fight for our rights is met with injustice, we will
4
(2021) 19 SCC 401
15
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
meet injustice with love. This gives a message that injustice should
not be retaliated, but it should be met with love.
17. The Supreme Court thereafter examined whether any
offence was made out. It examined the FIR as well as the provision
of section 196 of BNS which is the only provision the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submits is attracted in the present
case conceding that the prosecution lack material insofar as
sections 152, 336(4) and 61(2) of the BNS are concerned.
18. The Supreme Court opined:
“15. The offence under Section 196 is
attracted when the words, either spoken or
written, or by signs or visible
representations, promote enmity between
different groups, on the grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language,
caste or, community or any other ground.
The offence will be attracted when the
words either spoken or written, or signs or
visible representation, promote or attempt
to promote disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious, racial, language or regional
groups or castes or communities. On a
plain reading of the poem, we find that the
same has nothing to do with any religion,
caste, community or any particular group.
The poem's words do not bring about or
promote disharmony or feelings of hatred
or ill-will. It only seeks to challenge the
injustice made by the ruler. It is impossible
to say that the words used by the appellant
disturb or are likely to disturb public
tranquillity. Therefore, neither clause (a)
nor clause (b) of Section 196(1) are
attracted. There is no allegation against the
appellant of organising any exercise,
movement, drill or similar activity. There is
no allegation against the appellant that he
uttered the words in any place of worship
or in any assembly engaged in the
16
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
performance of religious worship or
religious ceremonies. Hence, clause (c) will
have no application. The appellant has put
a video of a mass marriage function, and in
the background, the words are uttered.
Therefore, Section 196 can have no
application .”
19. With a clear understanding of the provision of section 196
and as explained by the Supreme Court if we were to revisit the
offending written invitation by the Gorkha Seva Sena as well as the
FIR, it is clear that the petitioners under the aegis of “Gorkha Seva
Sena” had sought for and invited people‟s participation for public
consultation on the theme, “Constitutional Legality of Darjeeling-
Sikkim Unification”.
20. History reveals that the constitutional provisions have been
tested time and again in the Indian context over the last 76 years
and each time it has withstood any aberrations. Debates and
deliberations during a public consultation seeking views of
constitutional legality of what one group of people perceive may be
the right course of action, as opposed to the contrary view of
another group regarding the alleged proposed Darjeeling-Sikkim
Unification, ought not to provoke such extreme sentiments as to
attract the mischief of section 196 BNS. A contrary view, which
may be clearer, better reasoned and legally sound, may be more
persuasive. In the words of the Supreme Court “In a healthy
democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an
individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing
another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the
17
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the
views must be respected and protected.” Further borrowing the
words of the Supreme Court “When an offence punishable under
Section 196 BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written
words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable,
strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on
the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect
of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of
the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or
of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or
position.” Therefore, an invitation, by itself, for a public
consultation for constitutional legality of Darjeeling and Sikkim
Unification would not attract the provision of section 196 of BNS.
21. So, the next question on the facts of the case is the use of
the emblem of the Government of Sikkim in the invitation by the
th
Gorkha Seva Sena, Darjeeling about the words “50 Sikkim State
Day Celebration and Constitutional Consultation” and whether that
would lead to an inference that the petitioners were indulging in
activities which draw them back into the mischief of section 196 of
BNS.
22. Prima facie it seems to me quite clearly, mischievous. The
petitioners ought not to have used the official logo without the
expressed sanction of the Government of Sikkim. The illegal use of
the official logo may invite the petitioners for other consequences.
However, it is quite evident that even such use of the official logo
18
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
would not draw the case back to the provision of section 196 of
BNS, which is essentially for promoting enmity between different
groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony.
23. As pointed out by the Supreme Court it is for each one of us
including the police officers to abide by the Constitution and
respect its ideals. The philosophy of the Constitution and its ideals
can be found in the Preamble itself. The Preamble lays down that
the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into
a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure all
its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.
I am therefore of the opinion that this is a fit case that I should
exercise the power under section 528 of the BNSS and quash the
FIR, the charge-sheet as well as the criminal proceeding against
the petitioner pending before the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Special Division-I Gangtok, for the ends of justice, with a
direction that the petitioners shall not indulge in such mischievous
activities detrimental to the interest of the society by misusing
others property and representing it as was sought to be done in
the written invitation. The respondent is free to take appropriate
action for any illegality committed by the petitioners for the use of
the emblem as advised.
19
Crl.M.C. No. 01 of 2026
Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. vs. State of Sikkim
With
Crl.M.C. No. 07 of 2026
Noel Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
24. Accordingly, the Crl. M.C. No. 1 of 2026 and Crl. M.C. No. 7
of 2026 stands disposed of along with the pending interlocutory
application.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
Judge
Approved for reporting: Yes
to/