20th September: The District and Sessions Court, Gangtok, has rejected the bail application of Arun Limboo, who was arrested in connection with Sadar Police Station Case No. 129/2025 dated September 14, 2025. The case was registered under Sections 152, 352, 353(2), 356(2) and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The bail hearing was conducted before Sessions Judge Karma Wangchuk Bhutia in Crl. Misc. Case (Bail) No. 46 of 2025 on September 17, 2025, and the order was delivered on September 18, 2025. Arun Limboo was represented by senior counsel Karma Thinlay along with counsels Yasir N. Tamang and Zamyang Norbu Bhutia. The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Zangpo Sherpa, Public Prosecutor Yadav Sharma, and APP Sarita Rai.
During the hearing, the defence argued that the FIR was politically motivated and based on distortion. It was submitted that Arun Limboo is a farmer from Daring in Namchi district who had merely voiced concerns about public money being wasted in Sikkim and had “clearly told the youths not to follow the example of Nepal.” The defence maintained that the circulation of such thoughts on social media was protected under the fundamental right of free speech. To support its stand, it cited several judgments including S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) on sedition, Abhisar Sharma v. Union of India (2025), Riyaz v. State of U.P. (2025), Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
The State strongly opposed the bail plea, submitting that the videos circulated by Limboo did not merely criticise but attempted to incite rebellion by drawing parallels with the violent Gen-Z uprising in Nepal. The Additional Advocate General said, “The petitioner’s intent can be clearly discerned that he is drawing analogy between what happened recently in Nepal and inciting the youths in Sikkim to following the suit.” It was alleged that Limboo falsely portrayed the Chief Minister as using an official vehicle “worth more than one crore, which in fact is Mahindra ScorpioN,” and that he “attempted to show by morphing images of the spouse of Hon’ble Chief Minister and also of one Minister of State by falsely showing that they use ultra-luxury items in their daily wear at the cost of the poor citizens of the State.” The prosecution argued that the videos had “the potential of causing rebellion and endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of our country,” further submitting that “behind the petitioner, there are people with anti-social and anti-national intentions, which requires thorough investigation.” The State also pointed out that Limboo was not merely a farmer but a spokesperson of the SDF labour front and that he had “numerous criminal cases registered against him,” including Sadar PS Case No. 17 of 2023 and Soreng PS Case No. 8 of 2022.
The investigating officer produced before the court a pen drive containing the videos, which the judge personally reviewed. In the order, Judge K.W. Bhutia noted, “It would be seen from the video … that petitioner has attempted to draw an analogy between Gen-z uprising in Nepal … and the State of Sikkim. He would show pictures of Hon’ble Chief Minister and his spouse wearing ultra-luxury items and would (though not directly) encourage the people to take action.” Referring to the impact of speech, the court quoted Earl Nightingale: “Words are not simply sounds passing through the air but seeds planted in the hearts and minds of others – it carries immeasurable power where with words nations have been inspired to greatness and with words wars have been sparked.”
The court clarified that the truth about the pictures and the petitioner’s speech would be determined at trial, but held that “prima facie, there appear to be justification in invocation of Section 152 of BNS 2023 by the State.” It also took into account the submissions of the investigating agency that “there are several other persons involved behind the petitioner’s video and that it may have ramifications beyond the territory of India.”
In rejecting the bail, the court considered the seriousness of the offence, the possibility of tampering with evidence, the risk of absconsion, and the larger public interest. The order stated, “Gravity of offence, nature and character of accused, possibility of evidence being tampered, risk of absconsion of accused and the interest of public and society at large are factors considered for bail.” The court observed that Limboo was not a person without a criminal record and that the nature of the alleged offence was “indeed grave.” It held that “the larger interest of society requires a fair investigation into the matter” and emphasised that at this stage, the investigating agency must be given sufficient time and opportunity to reach the root of the case.
The judge concluded by stating, “Hence, at this juncture, I am not inclined to allow this application. The petitioner may file the same at a later stage so as to enable the investigating agency to complete their preliminary stage of investigation.” Accordingly, the bail application of Arun Limboo was dismissed on September 18, 2025.
