Tripura HC has refused to interfere with criminal proceedings arising from alleged derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Agartala Municipal Corporation mayor and Mata Tripureswari. The case involves social media posts that led to police action against the accused.
The court’s approach keeps the criminal proceedings open while leaving the allegations to be examined through the proper legal process. The case highlights the limits of the High Court’s intervention at an early stage of a criminal matter.
Tripura HC examines allegations in social media case
The case concerns Madhabi Biswas, who was accused of posting objectionable content on social media. According to the FIR, the posts allegedly contained derogatory and critical language directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the mayor of Agartala Municipal Corporation and Mata Tripureswari.
The police registered a case at East Agartala Police Station under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The allegations also referred to other material allegedly posted through the accused’s social media account.
The allegations remain matters for adjudication and have not been established as facts against the accused.
Tripura HC considers criminal charges
The Tripura HC proceedings followed the accused’s legal challenge after her arrest. The court record shows that she was arrested in the case on November 12, 2025, while the investigation was later completed and a charge sheet was filed.
The prosecution opposed relief, pointing out that the investigation had concluded and that a petition seeking custodial trial was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura. The prosecution therefore argued that the High Court should not disrupt the proceedings at that stage.
Meanwhile, the defence argued that the allegations did not attract Section 67 of the IT Act and that Section 356(2) of the BNS was bailable. The defence also highlighted the period already spent in custody and the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences.
Court weighs nature of offences
The Tripura HC examined the provisions under which the charge sheet had been filed. It noted that Section 356 of the BNS was bailable, while Section 67 of the IT Act was non-bailable, with punishment of up to three years for a first offence and up to five years for subsequent offences.
Justice S. Datta Purkayastha also noted that the accused had remained in judicial custody for almost two months and that the investigation had already been completed. The court therefore granted interim bail, rather than allowing continued incarceration while another procedural issue remained pending.
Tripura HC leaves trial court decision intact
Importantly, the Tripura HC did not take over the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court said it would not interfere with the lower court’s consideration of the investigating officer’s request for custodial trial.
The accused was ordered to be released on an interim basis on furnishing a bond of Rs 30,000 with one surety of the same amount. The relief was to remain in force until the Chief Judicial Magistrate decided the pending custodial-trial application.
The order also made clear that the magistrate must decide the pending application according to law and without being influenced by the High Court’s bail order.
What the Tripura HC order means
The Tripura HC proceedings underline the distinction between granting bail and ending a criminal case. Interim bail does not amount to an acquittal, nor does it establish that the allegations are false.
The court’s January 7, 2026 order focused on the accused’s custody, the completion of investigation and the punishment attached to the alleged offences. It did not determine the ultimate truth of the social media allegations.
The case also reflects the growing legal questions surrounding online speech and criminal liability. Social media posts can trigger criminal proceedings when authorities allege that they fall within relevant provisions of criminal or information technology law. However, the allegations still have to be tested through due process.
Proceedings continue under due process
The Tripura HC’s handling of the matter leaves the next steps with the competent trial court. The magistrate is required to consider the pending application independently, while the criminal case itself remains subject to the normal judicial process.
Overall, the case demonstrates that interim judicial relief does not automatically end prosecution. The allegations against Madhabi Biswas will ultimately have to be assessed by the competent court on the basis of evidence and applicable law.
