The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of personal liberty, the requirement of prior sanctions for prosecution, and the need to balance personal liberty with the investigational rights of the police.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 439 of Cr. P.C seeking bail in connection with C.I.D. Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.16 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.691 of 2020 pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (City), Cuttack. The petitioner herein is the accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 150/153/153-A/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.06.2020 at about 5:45 P.M., the Inspector of Police, CID Crime Branch, Odisha, Cuttack (informant) submitted a written report before the Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, Odisha to the effect that the petitioner claiming himself as the National Chairman Dharma Rakshyak Shree Darasena circulated WhatsApp messages (Mobile No.7292005711) casting aspersion upon the impartiality of the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court especially the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and provoking his likeminded people to mobilize and congregate in front of the residence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to assault him physically. It is further alleged in the FIR that the rest part of the WhatsApp messages has been sent with an intention to promote enmity between different groups on the ground of religion. Thereafter the petitioner has been taken into custody.

3. Heard Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party and perused the case records.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack has rejected the bail application of the petitioner without applying his judicial mind and without taking into consideration the facts and documents on record and has wrongly relied on the version of the informant. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above said case. Further, he has contended that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated and has been made in accordance with the direction of police with malicious intent. The alleged offences have not been committed by the petitioner and there is no connection or involvement of the petitioner with the alleged WhatsApp conversation. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show whether the petitioner provoked a third party or the method of such provocation. Learned counsel has further contended that Section 196(1) of Cr. P.C. provides that no court shall take the cognizance of offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code without the prior sanction of the Central and State Government, and in the present case no such sanction has been granted to the prosecution. Moreover, the petitioner is a person of good character awarded with many accolades many times in different cities in India. Therefore, it is submitted that all the allegations made in the FIR are patently false which can be seen at the perusal of the FIR itself and there is not even a single allegation, which makes out the offence and the alleged WhatsApp messages were sent only to four persons after his phone was hacked at midnight by professional hackers while the petitioner was asleep. Hence, he should be granted bail.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Zafarulla, the learned counsel for the State has contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious in nature. On perusal of the FIR, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., seizure list and screenshots of the alleged WhatsApp messages, it is clear that the petitioner has maliciously attempted to create aspersions on the sanctity of Indian judiciary and especially the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, giving rise to promotion of religious disharmony and glorifying murders. Additionally, the petitioner may tamper with prosecution evidence, if released on bail, and therefore the prayer for bail deserves to be rejected.

6. On bare perusal of the Case Diary, it is noted that police, d