Manoj Paul v. The Administration Of Andaman And Nicobar Island And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM (A)/6/2025 IA No. CRAN/1/2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Bambooflat P.S.Case No. 29 of 2025 dated 10.06.2025 under Sections 351(1)/351(2)/352/353(2)/356(1)/356(2)/298/299 of BNS, 2023.
And In the matter of : Shri Manoj Paul Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Another Mr. Mit Guha Roy ... for the appellant (Through Virtual Mode) Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar Mr. S. C. Mishra ... for the respondents September 08, 2025 [AKB] Item No.1 The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking the relief of Anticipatory Bail in connection with Bambooflat Police Station Case No. 29 of 2025 dated 10.06.2025 for offenses punishable under Sections 351(1)/ 351(2)/ 352/ 353(2)/ 356(1)/ 356(2)/ 298/ 299 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged by the Muhiyedheen Juma Masjid Committee against the petitioner, alleging that he had uploaded certain communal videos. In the said videos, the petitioner is alleged to have made
statements indicating the presence of Bangladeshi Nationals at the Masjid situated at Mannarghat village. It is further alleged that the petitioner openly accused the Muslim community for harbouring illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The petitioner is also stated to have alleged that while the ground floor of the Masjid is used for offering prayers, the first floor is being utilized to accommodate the Illegal Bangladeshi Muslim Nationals. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 29 of 2025 dated 10.06.2025 was registered against the petitioner at Bambooflat Police Station under the provisions referred hereinabove.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application seeking Anticipatory Bail, being Criminal Misc. Case No. 49 of 2025, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair.
However, by order dated 24.07.2025, the said application was rejected. The petitioner thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 11902/2025. By order dated 11.08.2025, the said petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Principal bench of Calcutta High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to grant protection to the petitioner from arrest for a period of two weeks. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred the present petition through the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee. Matter was mentioned before the Principal Bench at Calcutta, wherein, vide order dated 22.08.2025 the Court was
pleased to grant interim protection to the petitioner from the arrest until the Circuit Bench at Port Blair takes up the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a law-abiding citizen who has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The petitioner submits that he has been actively engaged in filing several public interest litigations in the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. He further points out that on earlier occasions also, multiple FIRs have been registered against him on account of his public-spirited activities. The petitioner has drawn the attention of this Hon'ble Court to an earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) Miscellaneous No. 1051 of 2024, dated 01.03.
2024, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant him police protection in view of the threats faced by him consequent to the filing of such public interest litigations. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at present, the petitioner is residing in Delhi along with his family, including his 14-monthold son. It is his case that he is being harassed and persecuted by the local administration solely on account of his having instituted various public interest litigations. It is further submitted that by emails dated 11.08.2025 and 13.08.2025, the petitioner informed the Investigating Officer of his willingness to cooperate with the investigation through video conferencing, and also conveyed that his statement may be recorded at any police station in Delhi.
However, no response has been received from the Investigating Officer in this regard.
photographs of himself standing in front of the Police Station, thereby demonstrating his bona fide intention and readiness to participate in the investigation. Additionally, by way of a letter dated 04.09.2025, the petitioner has categorically stated that he is present in Port Blair and is ready and willing to have his statement recorded and to cooperate fully with the investigation in the interest of justice.
Learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the prayer for Anticipatory Bail, it is submitted that, despite service of notice, the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation. On the contrary, it is alleged that the petitioner continues to upload objectionable videos on social media. It is further submitted that such videos has insighted communal tension and unrest in the area concerned. Learned Public Prosecutor states that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative. Hence, he prays for rejection of the Anticipatory Bail.
This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel of the parties and has examined the documents. It is observed that despite having been granted interim protection from arrest, the petitioner has not placed himself physically at the disposal of the Investigating Officer. The statement made by the learned counsel for the prosecution that the petitioner continues to upload objectionable videos is not borne out from the case diary and is, therefore, incorrect. The petitioner has filed several public interest litigations in the Islands and claims to be a public-spirited person as well
as an IIT graduate. He asserts that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. From the record, it is evident that the FIR was lodged on 10.06.2025 and that the notice requiring the petitioner's participation in the investigation was served only after a delay of 37 days. It is further noted that the petitioner has since deleted the impugned video from his social media handle. According to him, the said video had originally been forwarded to him through social media. The petitioner has undertaken that he shall not upload, circulate, or disseminate any such videos in future which may disturb public peace or cause disharmony among religious groups.
He has further undertaken that he shall not make any irresponsible or defamatory statement against any community, religious organisation, police officials, or officers of the administration without adequate evidence. The petitioner has also expressed his willingness to comply with any conditions which may be imposed by this Court while considering his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. He has further relied upon an earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India granting him police protection in view of the threats he faced on account of his public interest activities.
In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, Manoj Paul, shall be released on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:
(i) He shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. (iii) He shall not make any irresponsible or defamatory statement against any community, religious organisation, police officials, or officers of the administration without adequate evidence.
(iv) He shall not upload any videos with any communal tenor or any videos which hurts the sensitivity and communal harmony of any religion.
(v) He shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
(vi) He shall report before the Investigating Officer once in a month until further orders.
(vii) He shall not, directly or indirectly, induce, threaten or promise any witness acquainted with the facts of the case.
(viii) He shall appear before the jurisdictional court within four weeks from today and apply for regular bail. With the above directions, the present petition along with CRAN/1/2025 is disposed of.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.)