FIR against J&K soldier for remarks on Pahalgam; PIB says he is a deserter

Accusations Spark Controversy After April 22 Attack

Jammu and Kashmir Police have filed an FIR against Dilhair Mushtaq Sofi, a former sepoy with the 29 Rashtriya Rifles. A video posted by Sofi accused the Indian Army and central government of staging the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 people.

The video quickly went viral and drew widespread attention online. Sofi’s claims were seen as serious and provocative, especially in the wake of a deadly incident.

Government Responds with Clarification

The Press Information Bureau (PIB) responded swiftly. It stated that Sofi has not been with the Army since March 2025. He is officially listed as a deserter, not an active-duty soldier. The PIB also called the video “fake” and part of a misinformation campaign.

The FIR, registered at Ganderbal police station, includes charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These include promoting enmity and threatening India’s unity and sovereignty.

Debt and Gambling May Have Influenced His Actions

Investigators found that Sofi had accumulated debts of over ₹10 lakh due to online gambling. Police believe his financial troubles could have played a role in his actions.

Officials are now examining the full background of the video. They want to understand whether he acted alone or as part of a larger disinformation effort.

Security Forces Urge Public to Stay Alert

The Army and police condemned the video. They called it an attempt to mislead the public and weaken trust in national institutions. Officials urged people to verify information before sharing it online.

They also stressed the importance of digital responsibility, especially when it involves national security and public trust.

Public Divided Over the Video

The video sparked mixed reactions on social media. Some expressed concern about the allegations, while others strongly criticized Sofi for making baseless claims. Veterans supported the authorities and called for strict action against those who spread false information.

Conclusion

This case shows how quickly misinformation can spread and cause harm. As legal action continues, authorities are focused on identifying the people behind the video.

The incident highlights the growing threat of fake news. It also shows why citizens must remain careful and verify facts before sharing sensitive content.