Lack of criminal antecedents and duration of custody warrant bail in religious sentiment offences.

The applicant, Pradyuman Mishra, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 110/2026 for allegedly posting derogatory comments and objectionable content regarding the Prophet and the Muslim community through his Instagram profile

The prosecution alleged these posts hurt religious sentiments and posed a threat to social peace

Following a complainant’s report, the applicant was arrested and sent to jail on February 21, 2026

The applicant moved the High Court seeking regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, had no intent to outrage religious feelings, and was the sole breadwinner of his family

He further alleged that no notice under Section 41(4) was served upon him prior to arrest

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the nature of the allegations and the progress of the investigation

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides the High Court with the power to grant bail

Section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), Section 196(1) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), and Section 353(C) (circulating reports containing rumors/alarming news with intent to create communal hatred) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the applicant's fundamental right to liberty and the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents.

Crucially, the Court observed that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed and the applicant had already been in judicial custody since February 21, 2026.

Given that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take significant time, the Court reasoned that further incarceration was not warranted.

The Court also addressed the necessity of ensuring the applicant's presence during trial by imposing strict conditions, such as the filing of an undertaking to not seek adjournments and mandatory appearance during critical stages of the trial (e.g., framing of charges and recording of statements).

The holding was conditional upon the applicant not seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, appearing on every fixed date, and complying with Section 209 and Section 351 of the BNSS. The Court warned that any abuse of the liberty of bail would allow the trial court to proceed against him in accordance with law.