Introduction:

In Usha Rani Biswas on behalf of Madhabi Biswas versus The State of Tripura, the Tripura High Court granted interim bail to an online content creator who was accused of posting a Facebook reel containing allegedly derogatory and obscene remarks against political leaders including the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and Tripura Chief Minister Manik Saha, with the Court taking into account that the accused Madhabi Biswas had already spent a considerable period in judicial custody and that the investigation in the case had been completed, and the matter was heard by a Bench presided over by Justice S Datta Purkayastha who carefully balanced the competing interests of personal liberty and procedural requirements of criminal justice, noting that the offences invoked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act carried punishments of less than seven years, and therefore prolonged incarceration at the pre trial stage would not be justified in the absence of exceptional circumstances; the case arose from an FIR registered at the West Agartala Police Station on the basis of a complaint filed by one Rimpi Das who alleged that the accused had uploaded a reel on social media making obscene and derogatory remarks concerning the Prime Minister’s visit to the Matabari Temple at Udaipur on 22 September 2025, and based on this complaint offences under Sections 356 and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act were registered, following which the accused was arrested on 25 November 2025 and remained in custody for nearly two months, even though the police had already filed a charge sheet and the investigation had concluded, while at the same time a separate petition by the Investigating Officer seeking a so called custodial trial was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate West Tripura, which became a central procedural issue in deciding whether bail should be granted at this stage.

Arguments:

Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the allegations even if taken at face value did not disclose offences of such gravity as to warrant continued incarceration, especially when the statutory punishment for the alleged offences did not exceed seven years and in the case of Section 67 of the Information Technology Act the punishment for a first offence extended only up to three years and for subsequent offences up to five years, and therefore the case squarely fell within the category where bail should ordinarily be granted as per settled principles of criminal law, and it was further argued that the accused had already cooperated with the investigation which now stood completed, that the charge sheet had been filed, and that there was no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses at this stage, making continued custody punitive rather than preventive; it was also emphasized that personal liberty is a constitutional value protected under Article 21 and that pre trial detention should not be used as a tool of punishment, particularly in cases involving speech related allegations where the line between lawful criticism and criminal offence often requires careful judicial scrutiny at the trial stage; on the other hand the State opposed the bail plea not on the ground that the offences were punishable with severe sentences but on the procedural ground that the Investigating Officer had filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking custodial trial, and therefore according to the prosecution the High Court should refrain from granting bail until the Magistrate had decided whether the presence of the accused in custody was necessary for the conduct of trial, and it was contended that granting bail at this stage could interfere with the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to decide the pending petition; however the prosecution also conceded that the investigation was complete and that the charge sheet had already been submitted, which significantly reduced the usual grounds for opposing bail such as risk of interference with investigation or destruction of evidence, and the High Court therefore had to consider whether procedural pendency alone could justify continued detention of the accused despite the completion of investigation and relatively moderate punishment prescribed by law.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice S Datta Purkayastha after examining the statutory provisions and the factual circumstances of the case held that keeping the bail application pending merely because a petition for custodial trial was awaiting decision before the Chief Judicial Magistrate would result in unnecessary prolongation of incarceration, which would be inconsistent with the principles governing grant of bail particularly when the investigation had already concluded and the offences alleged were not punishable with severe imprisonment, and the Court specifically noted that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act prescribes imprisonment up to three years for a first offence and up to five years for subsequent offences, while the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita invoked in the case also did not carry punishment exceeding seven years, thereby placing the case within the category where bail should normally be considered favourably unless strong reasons exist to deny it; the Court observed that the accused had already been in custody for almost two months and that further detention without trial would amount to pre conviction punishment, which is impermissible under criminal jurisprudence, and at the same time the Court was careful not to undermine the procedural authority of the Magistrate in dealing with the petition for custodial trial, and therefore adopted a balanced approach by granting interim bail that would remain effective only until the Chief Judicial Magistrate decides the petition filed by the Investigating Officer, thereby ensuring that the liberty of the accused is protected without prejudicing the jurisdiction of the lower court; the High Court reasoned that such an approach harmonizes the constitutional mandate to protect personal liberty with the need to respect the procedural framework of criminal courts, and accordingly directed that the accused Madhabi Biswas be released on interim bail in connection with the case, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Court, while making it clear that the interim nature of the relief was linked to the outcome of the pending petition before the Magistrate, and through this order the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly in cases where investigation is complete and statutory punishment does not justify prolonged detention, and that procedural delays or pending applications cannot become a ground to keep an accused behind bars when the legal threshold for continued custody is not met.