Indore Bench Of MP HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Indore Based Cartoonist
Case Background
Parties Involved: The petitioner is Hemant Malviya, an Indore-based cartoonist. The complaint was filed by Vinay Joshi, an RSS worker and local advocate, leading to an FIR at Lasudiya Police Station, Indore in May 2025.
Allegations: Malviya posted a satirical caricature on his Facebook page depicting:
An RSS figure (in khaki uniform) bending over with his shorts pulled down;
Prime Minister Modi administering an injection on the figure’s bottom;
A caption referencing Lord Shiva in a derogatory context.
Legal Sections Invoked:
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Sections 196, 299, 302, 352, 353(3).
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 67A.
High Court Decision (Indore Bench)
Bench: Single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar at the Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in an order dated July 3, 2025, dismissed the anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail application.
Key Observations & Reasoning:
Misuse of Free Speech: The court held that Malviya’s content “overstepped the threshold of freedom of speech and expression” under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, amounting to misuse.
Classification as Offence: The depiction of RSS and the Prime Minister, coupled with derogatory invocation of Lord Shiva in comments he endorsed—and encouragement of others to reuse the caricature—was seen as deliberate and malicious, intended to outrage religious feelings and disturb public harmony.
Need for Custodial Interrogation: The court observed that the petitioner "clearly overstepped" and appeared unaware of limits, warranting custodial interrogation. It referenced Sections 41(1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), implying arrest provisions were applicable, and thus bail couldn’t be granted.
Distinction from Precedents:
Imran Pratapgarhi case: Where a poem without religious connotations was involved; the bench held it distinguishable, noting Malviya himself authored the cartoon and endorsed the caption.
Mammen Varghese cartoon case (Kerala HC): Involved national flag imagery, facts markedly different; hence not applicable here.
Comparisons to R.K. Laxman’s caricatures were rejected, as no analogous work was presented.
Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail (M.Cr.C.) petition. The court noted that Malviya could still explore appeal routes — via a Division Bench or the Supreme Court.
Subsequent Developments and Supreme Court Stand
A few days later, on July 16, 2025, the Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to Malviya. The apex court recognized the seriousness of the offensive posts and noted that the case could set an important legal precedent balancing free speech with responsibility.
Summary Table
| Date / Court | Outcome | Highlights |
|---|---|---|
| July 3, 2025 (MP HC, Indore bench) | Anticipatory bail denied; custodial interrogation deemed necessary | Misuse of Art. 19(1)(a); offended religious sentiments |
| July 16, 2025 (Supreme Court) | Interim protection granted from arrest | Balancing free speech concerns with protection from arrest |
Key Case Law Referenced
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): Established that bail is default for offences where punishment is ≤ 7 years unless compelling reasons exist. The High Court held this not applicable because of the perceived misuse and harm to public order.
Imran Pratapgarhi case: Noted by the bench as non-binding here—poem lacked religious content and wasn’t authored by the accused.
Mammen Varghese case (Kerala HC): Considered irrelevant in context due to different facts.
Legal Analysis
Free Speech vs. Religious Sentiment: Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute—it yields when speech intentionally destabilizes social harmony or offends religious sentiments.
Custodial Interrogation Rationale: The court’s judgment hinges on Malviya’s deliberate endorsements and provocative messaging that went beyond satire into territory deemed harmful.
Appeal Options: While High Court denied bail, Malviya still has appellate recourse via a Division Bench or Supreme Court, as noted in the legal commentary.
SC’s Interim Relief: Underscores judicial care in preserving liberty while the matter is adjudicated.
Final Takeaway
The High Court (Indore Bench of MP High Court) refused anticipatory bail to Hemant Malviya on July 3, 2025, citing misuse of free expression, offense to religious sentiments, and need for custodial interrogation. This order invoked several critical provisions under the IPC (via BNS), IT Act, and CrPC procedural sections. While bail was denied, Malviya received interim protection from arrest from the Supreme Court on July 16, 2025, pending further hearings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments