Point of Law : High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of powers when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of personal liberty in the exercise of State powers, apart from other parameters for consideration of bail.

JUDGMENT :

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner is seeking the following prayer:

“(b) to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order and or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby calling for the investigation papers concerning FIR No.124 of 2022 of Naupada police station, Thane and so also investigation papers concerning FIR No.470/22 of Goregaon police station, Mumbai and investigation papers of FIR No.165 of 2022 of Dindori Police Station, Nashik, FIR No,.83 of 2022 of Cyber Police Station, Shivajinagar, Pune, as well as other FIRs/complaints, if any, received in respect of or concerning the impugned tweet dated 11th May, 2022, being Exhibit-’B’ annexed herewith, the same my be pleased to quash and set aside.”

2. List the petition for further hearing on 12 July 2022.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for the grant of interim relief that the Petitioner be directed to be released on bail. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this interim prayer.

4. Several FIRs came to be filed against the Petitioner.

(i) FIR No.124/2022 at Naupada Police Station, Thane, on 13 May 2022 at 20.10 hours for the offence punishable under sections 107, 153, 153(A), 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was in respect of a post stated to be put up by the Petitioner on the social media platform “Twitter” on 11 May 2022.

(ii) In respect of the same tweet, FIR No.165/2022 was filed at Dindori Police Station, Nashik, on 14 May 2022;

(iii) FIR No.13/2022 at Cyber Cell, Pune city on 14 May 2022;

(iv) FIR No.570/2022 at Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai on 14 May 2022;

(v) FIR No. 502/2022 at Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai on 14 May 2022; and

(vi) FIR No.292/2022 at Dehu Road Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad on 15 May 2022.

5. It is common ground that these FIRs relate to the same post on social media and are on the same allegations. The gist of the allegations is that the Petitioner posted a message on the social media platform, which was in respect of a senior political leader of the ruling political party in the State, which post was intended to promote enmity in different groups on religion, place of birth, language etc.

6. The Petitioner was arrested in respect of the offence registered at Dindori Police Station, Nashik, Naupada Police Station, Thane, Cyber Cell, Pune city and Dehu Road Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad on 13 May 2022. As regards the FIR registered at Dindori Police Station and Dehu Road Police Station, the Petitioner has been released on bail by the learned Magistrate. As regards FIR registered at Naupada Police Station and Cyber Cell, the Petitioner filed applications before the learned Magistrate, which were rejected. Regarding the order of rejection and for grant of bail, the Petitioner and the State have not taken any further steps. As a result, the Petitioner has continued to be in custody since 13 May 2022.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case where the prayer for grant of interim bail in a petition seeking to quash FIR needs to be considered. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. the State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427). The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a student and all that he has done is a message on the social media, and the FIR in respect of the said post do not prima facie indicate that any offence is made out. The learned counsel further submitted that the continued custody of the Petitioner is entirely unwarranted and keeping the Petitioner in custody has serious repercussions on the society. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that for the same post series of FIRs have been filed, which is entirely unwarranted and impermissible in law. The