HT Digital
GUWAHATI, Mar 29: The Gauhati High Court on Friday granted interim bail to Congress spokesperson Reetam Singh, who was arrested over a social media post questioning the legal status of a case against BJP MLA Manab Deka. The court raised serious concerns over police procedures and discrepancies in the case, leading to Singh’s release on bail.
Singh was arrested on March 15 following a complaint alleging that he had posted defamatory and derogatory remarks on the social media platform “X” (formerly Twitter). The complainant accused Singh of making baseless and malicious claims against her husband, an MLA, and her late father. His posts allegedly referred to the MLA as a “rapist” and an “obedient Ghar Jamai,” which she claimed were caste and gender-based insults.
Related Posts:
The case (No. 91/2025) was registered by the North Lakhimpur police under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, during the hearing, Justice Mitali Thakuria pointed out several discrepancies in the police investigation.
One major concern was the handling of the First Information Report (FIR). The court noted that the FIR shown to Singh’s mother was initially undated, with the date added later. There was also a discrepancy between the date the FIR was lodged and the date it was officially received, raising questions about procedural lapses.
Moreover, Justice Thakuria observed that while Singh’s tweet contained potentially defamatory statements against the complainant’s husband, it did not include caste-based or gender-based remarks against the complainant or her father. The court even noted that Singh had referred to the complainant’s father as a “respected person,” contradicting the allegations against him.
The court also scrutinized the police’s compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), which govern the procedures following an arrest. The notice informing Singh of his arrest under Section 47 BNSS lacked critical details such as the date, time, and place of arrest. Additionally, the notice was issued by the Officer-in-Charge of Gossaigaon Police Station instead of North Lakhimpur Police Station, further casting doubt on its legitimacy.
Another crucial observation made by the court was that after Singh’s arrest, lower courts denied police remand but allowed interrogation in jail. Despite this, the investigating officer never attempted to interrogate Singh, raising concerns about the necessity of his arrest in the first place.
The court also addressed Singh’s refusal to provide login credentials for his mobile phone and “X” account, ruling that he could not be compelled to do so as it would violate his right against self-incrimination.
Justice Thakuria, in her order, stated, “Going by the above discussions, it is seen that the petitioner has made out a strong ground for grant of bail but for abundant caution it is felt just and proper to go through the Case Diary. However, the ends of justice do not justify curtailing the liberty of the petitioner in the instant given fact of the case.”
Singh was granted interim bail on a bond of ₹50,000 with a surety of the same amount. As part of his bail conditions, he must cooperate with the investigation and refrain from influencing witnesses. The court’s observations have sparked discussions about due process in legal proceedings and the role of law enforcement in politically sensitive cases.
