Anticipatory bail granted where digital evidence is scientifically preservable and custodial interrogation serves no demonstrable purpose.

On June 2, 2026, an objectionable and derogatory WhatsApp message regarding Jain saint Muni Shri Sudhasagar Ji Maharaj was posted in a group titled "Jagruk Jain Samaj Bharat".

The message allegedly outraged religious feelings and disturbed public peace, leading to the registration of Crime No. 346/2026 at P.S. Kotwali, Ashoknagar.

Although the FIR was initially against an unknown person, technical investigation linked the mobile number (7354297110) to the applicants.

The applicants—Dr. Rekha Jain (a retired DSP), Sameer Jain (a mobile repair shop owner), and Rahul Jain—sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the mobile handset was not in their possession at the time of the post, that the investigation was biased due to communal hostilities, and that the case rested solely on electronic evidence currently available to the state.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding anticipatory bail

It relied on the Constitution Bench decisions in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which established that anticipatory bail is a facet of Article 21 and should not be restricted by unnecessary limitations

It strictly followed the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which mandate that arrest should not be mechanical for offences punishable by less than seven years and must be justified by specific necessity under Section 35 of the BNSS (formerly Section 41 CrPC)

Additionally, it cited Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand to emphasize that custodial interrogation must be objectively justified rather than used as a punitive measure

The Court reasoned that since the prosecution case is founded almost entirely on electronic records (WhatsApp messages, metadata, and IP logs), the evidence is scientific in nature and already capable of preservation without taking the applicants into custody

The Court noted that the applicants were not named in the FIR and their involvement was based on technical links that are yet to be proven at trial

Applying the Arnesh Kumar principles, the Court found that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a "compelling necessity" for custodial interrogation for offences that do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment

Specifically regarding Dr. Rekha Jain, the Court observed that her defense regarding the prior return of the mobile handset was a matter for trial, but did not necessitate immediate arrest

The Court balanced the individual's right to liberty against the state's interest, concluding that the applicants' willingness to cooperate and their status as permanent residents mitigated flight risk

It held that the existence of the power to arrest is distinct from the justification for its exercise and found no justification for custodial interrogation at this stage

The Court ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety in the like amount

This relief was made subject to the conditions that the applicants must strictly cooperate with the investigation and abide by conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, failing which the bail would be cancelled