MP High Court Directs State Not To Compel Man To Execute Bond Over Being Tagged As Habitual Offender After FB Comment On Kumbh Mela
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (July 24) directed the State not to force an individual declared as a "habitual offender" for alleged objectionable comment on Facebook concerning the Kumbh Mela, to fill up the bond in pursuance to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's (SDM) order, until the next hearing.
The high court had in the previous hearing directed the State to inform whether any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before action was taken against him under Section 129 BNSS. The petitioner has approached the high court challenging the SDM's order tagging him as a habitual offender.
Justice Vishal Mishra, in the order, stated:
"Learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, submits that as the proceedings under Section 129 of BNSS, 2023 are put to challenge, therefore they are required to file a detailed reply in the matter...In the interregnum, it is directed that the petitioner will not be forced to fill-up the bond in pursuance to impugned order till the next date of hearing.List the matter after four weeks for consideration".
The court further granted time to the respondents to file their response.
Under Section 129 when an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who is a habitual offender, the magistrate can require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bail bond, for his good behaviour for a period not exceeding three years, as they think fit.
The plea claims that proceedings against him were initiated based on a comment he made on a Facebook post, pertaining to the Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj. It claims that the comment has been characterised as a comment which might incite communal unrest.
The plea claims that this single comment has been used to initiate proceedings under Section 129 of BNSS and to bind him down with an interim and final bond of Rs. 25,000 each for period of six months by an order of the SDM.
On January 17, 2025, the officer-in-charge of the Bichhiya Police Station filed a complaint under Section 129(e) of the BNSS, 2023. In the complaint, it was claimed that the petitioner had a prior criminal history and was labelled as a habitual offender. It was further alleged that the petitioner's continued liberty posed a threat to public peace and communal harmony.
The petitioner, a 50-year-old social worker, claimed that the police merely reproduced the contents of the complaint in the Roznamcha and submitted it to the SDM without conducting any independent inquiry.
It was also alleged that the SDM relied solely on the police report to summon the petitioner and directed him to furnish the bonds. When the petitioner appeared before the SDM and objected to the bond demand, especially since he was not provided a show cause notice, the SDM ordered his judicial custody. He was released after a week
The petitioner claimed that he was compelled to furnish the bind without being provided a copy of the police complaint or any supporting evidence. In March 2025, he filed a detailed response contesting the legality of preventive proceedings and annexed relevant documents.
However, the SDM passed a final order on March 18, 2025, reiterating the allegations mentioned in the police complaint. According to the plea, the SDM concluded that the petitioner had posted objectionable comments on Facebook and had a history of unlawful activity, thereby posing a threat to communal harmony.
Thus, the petitioner approached the High Court, claiming that the designation of 'habitual offender' was neither supported by evidence nor justified under Section 129 of the BNSS. It was argued that the four out of the seven cases cited in SDM's order were merely preventive and did not indicate a consistent pattern of illegal conduct. He also submitted that the entire proceedings were vitiated due to a failure to observe basic principles of natural justice.
The matter is listed after four weeks.
Case Title: Vivek Pawar v Sub Divisional Magistrate Bichhiya (WP - 28112/2025 (CR)
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocates Akshay Sapre, Aishwarya Choudhary, Malavika Prasad, Nikita Sonavane, Sagar Soni, Spoorthi Cotha, Maheshwari Mawase and Tasveer Parmar
Counsel For State: Government Advocate A.S. Baghel