MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-DSP Over Objectionable WhatsApp Post On Jain Muni Sudhasagar

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to former Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and two others accused of circulating an allegedly objectionable WhatsApp message concerning Jain saint Muni Shri Sudhasagar Ji Maharaj, finding that the prosecution failed to establish any compelling necessity for their custodial interrogation.

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta passed the common order on anticipatory bail applications filed by Ex-DSP Dr. Rekha Jain, Sameer Jain and Rahul Jain in connection with an FIR lodged for offences under Sections 299, 352, 353(2), 61 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (corresponding to Sections 295-A, 504, 505, 120-A and B and 298 of IPC) and Sections 66B and 66C of the Information Technology Act.

According to the prosecution, an allegedly ‘objectionable’ message relating to Muni Shri Sudhasagar Ji Maharaj was posted in a WhatsApp group on June 2, 2026. The message was alleged to have hurt the religious sentiments of the saint's followers and disturbed communal harmony.

While the FIR was initially registered against an unknown person, the applicants were implicated during the course of the investigation.

After examining the case diary and the submissions made by the parties, the High Court said that the primary question was whether, on the basis of the material presently available, custodial interrogation appears necessary and whether the accusations disclose a prima facie case warranting arrest.

The Court observed that, while deciding an anticipatory bail application, it is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or determine disputed questions of fact.

Instead, it must examine whether custodial interrogation appears necessary and whether denial of liberty is justified in light of the constitutional protection under Article 21.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Sushila Aggarwal, Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil, Joginder Kumar and other judgments, the Court reiterated that arrest cannot be treated as a routine investigative tool merely because the police possess the statutory power to arrest.

The Court observed that, prima facie, the case was predominantly founded upon electronic evidence. It observed that mobile phones, SIM cards, call detail records, metadata, server information and other digital material are ordinarily capable of scientific examination without custodial detention.

Therefore, it opined that where such evidence can be secured in accordance with law, the investigating agency must demonstrate, through specific facts, why custodial interrogation is indispensable.

A mere assertion that investigation is continuing, the Court held, cannot by itself justify curtailing personal liberty.

The High Court further noted that the applicants were not named in the FIR and that their names surfaced only during the investigation.

It found that although the prosecution asserted that the technical investigation was still in progress, no specific material had been placed before the Court to show why the investigation could not proceed by requiring the applicants to cooperate, produce relevant electronic devices, and comply with lawful directions, rather than being taken into custody.

The Court emphasised that the necessity of investigation is distinct from the necessity of custodial interrogation.

Holding that the prosecution had failed to point out any concrete circumstance demonstrating that arrest would materially advance the investigation, the Court observed that the offences alleged were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and that the applicants had expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications and directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh each with one surety of the like amount, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC), including cooperation with the investigation.

Case Title: Dr Rekha Jian v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and connected cases

Date of Order: July 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta