BNS Offences Not Carrying Mandatory Sentence Warrant Anticipatory Bail Under S.482 BNSS: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-12

MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Case of Derogatory Facebook Post, Cites Lack of Mandatory Sentence Under BNS

Gwalior, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of publishing a derogatory Facebook post against a Union Minister, marking an early interpretation of bail provisions under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke allowed the application, emphasizing that the alleged offences are not punishable with a mandatory sentence.

Case Background

The case, Mahendra Jain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , originated from a police complaint filed at Police Station Kotwali, Ashoknagar. The complainant, Pradeep Pal, reported receiving a WhatsApp screenshot of a derogatory Facebook post allegedly made from the profile of "Mahendra Jainminda" targeting a Member of Parliament and Union Minister.

The post reportedly caused anger among the minister's supporters. The complainant submitted the screenshot, the Facebook profile details, and a pen drive containing a screen recording of the post as evidence. Consequently, the police registered Crime No. 462/2025 against the applicant, Mahendra Jain, under Sections 352 (assault or criminal force), 353(2) (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), and 356(2) (assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Fearing arrest, Jain moved the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Arguments from Both Sides

Applicant's Arguments: Counsel for Mahendra Jain argued that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was submitted that the BNS sections invoked against him do not prescribe a mandatory sentence. The defense highlighted that the applicant has no prior criminal history and that pre-trial confinement would cause significant personal hardship and social disrepute. The applicant also undertook to cooperate fully with the investigation and trial.

State's Arguments: The counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was still in its preliminary stages and that granting bail at this point would be premature.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

After hearing both parties and perusing the case diary, Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke found merit in the applicant's plea. The Court's decision hinged on two key factors: the nature of the accusation and the sentencing provisions for the alleged offences.

In its order, the court observed:

"Taking into account that the offences alleged under Sections 352, 353(2), and 356(2) of the BNS, 2023 are not punishable with mandatory sentence and the nature of accusation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court intends to allow this application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023."

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that in the event of arrest, Mahendra Jain shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of the same amount.

The bail is subject to several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, not tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, not committing similar offences, and not leaving the country without prior permission from the court or investigating officer.