Manoj Paul v. The State And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/56/2025 Manoj Paul Vs The State and Ors.

Mr. Manoj Paul ... Petitioner in person Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State November 6, 2025 [AKB] Item No.5 The petitioner in person was granted anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court upon 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." The petitioner appearing in person submitted to have been a resident of Delhi facing difficulty in staying in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and sought for a modification of the condition of the bail as directed to be complied with by Coordinate Bench of this Court to the extent allowing him to join investigation via VC Mode as per Section 180 read with Section 532 of BNSS, 2023.

The learned advocate representing the State opposed the prayer of such modification urging that the petitioner had not been cooperating with the investigation and refusing to depart with the laptop which required to be accessed for the purpose of investigation. Such an act of the petitioner is delaying the process of investigation and filling of the charge sheet. The petitioner submitted to have voluntarily submitted the mobile to the investigation agency. He further stated the laptop is required for pursuing regular communications, in drafting PILs, RTIs application etc and further submitted that he can handover his laptop to the investigating officer for a period of seven days and thereafter the same is to be returned to him for his personal use.

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide a detailed order dated September 08, 2025 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM (A)/6/2025 wherein it had been inter alia stated as follows:- "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."

The petitioner within less than two months have come for modification of the condition, which he had earlier conceded before the Coordinate Bench of this Court expressing his willingness to comply the same.

The charge sheet in the instant case has not been submitted as yet. The petitioner is to cooperate with the investigating agency and the learned advocate representing the State is to ensure that the process of investigation is expedited

for filing of the charge sheet. The condition No. (vi) that the petitioner is to report the investigating officer once in a month until further order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall report before the investigating officer once in two months until further orders. The other portions of the order dated September 08, 2025 are not interfered with.

CRR/56/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)