The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Mahendra Jain, a former Congress councillor, who was booked after allegedly posting a derogatory comment on Facebook directed at Union Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia. The order was passed by a division bench led by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke. The Court’s decision was influenced by the nature of the accusations and the fact that the offences under the relevant statute—the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023)—do not carry mandatory sentences.
Mahendra Jain is accused of having made offensive remarks about Minister Scindia in response to a video from Khirka Tanka village, Gwalior, where a woman complained to religious spokesperson Anirudh Acharya about poor school conditions—specifically that teachers rarely visit the school even though it is just two kilometres from the local MLA’s residence. The video was shared by another Congress leader, and on that post, Jain allegedly responded with indecent or objectionable content about Scindia. Supporters of Scindia filed a police complaint, leading to registration of an FIR. The charges include Sections 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 353(2) (statements conducing to public mischief), and 356(2) (defamation) under the BNSS, 2023.
In his plea before the High Court, Jain’s counsel contended that he was falsely implicated, that there was no criminal antecedent against him, and that his inclusion in the FIR would cause personal inconvenience and social prejudice. The State, opposing the anticipatory bail, disputed his arguments.
Considering the submissions, the High Court granted bail to Jain. In its reasoning, the Court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations but noted that the accused had been charged under offences that are not punishable with mandatory imprisonment. The Court, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, found sufficient grounds under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to allow anticipatory bail. The Court observed that non-mandatory punishments, absence of criminal history, and the circumstances of the case weighed in favour of bail.
The High Court’s order makes clear that anticipatory bail is to be granted not as a matter of right but based on overall assessment of the case’s nature, seriousness of allegations, and potential hardship to the accused. While offences involving insults, defamation, or mischief are serious, the Court recognized that the law does not mandate custody for such offences in all cases.
Mahendra Jain’s application is now allowed, meaning that he has protection from arrest in connection with this FIR, subject to conditions (if any imposed by the Court). The legal process will proceed, and the merits of the accusations will be adjudicated in accordance with the law.
The case, titled Mahendra Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh, underscores the High Court’s careful balancing of individual liberty against state’s interest in maintaining public order when it comes to social media speech and political criticism. The judgment reinforces that bail function should not be denied mechanically, especially where the law provides discretion and where the accused does not present a threat of escape or tampering with evidence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.