Criminal Law – Multiplicity of proceedings – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 153-A, 295-A, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 437, 438, 482 – Constitution of India – Arts. 32, 226 – Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – s. 35 – FIR No.172 of 2022 was registered against Petitioner, co-founder of ALT News, a fact checking portal, at Special Cell of Delhi Police for alleged offences punishable u/ss. 153-A, 295-A, 201 and 120-B, IPC – Offence u/s. 35, FCRA added during course of investigation – Successive FIRs registered in diverse Police Stations in the State of Uttar Pradesh – Present petition filed for quashing of the five FIRs and in the alternative for the clubbing of the said FIRs alongwith FIR No. 226/2022 registered at PS Khairabad, Distt. Sitapur with FIR No. 172/2022 – Held: Essentially, the allegations against the petitioner pertain to the tweets put out by him – Petitioner was granted regular bail in the proceedings arising out of FIR 172/2022 – Also, in the proceedings which had reached Supreme Court arising out of FIR No. 226/2022, the petitioner was granted interim bail which was extended pending further orders – However, the petitioner is still embroiled in successive FIRs registered in diverse Police Stations in the State of Uttar Pradesh where he is in judicial custody and applications for the grant of bail are pending – Despite the fact that the same tweets allegedly gave rise to similar offences in the diverse FIRs, the petitioner was subjected to multiple investigations across the country – Machinery of criminal justice has been relentlessly employed against him – Further, merely because the complaints filed against the petitioner arise from posts made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made – Such blanket order would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail and would tantamount to a gag order – Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech – Petitioner enlarged on interim bail in connection with the FIRs set out in paragraph (i) – Investigation into the said FIRs stands transferred from the Uttar Pradesh Police to the Special Cell of Delhi Police – SIT constituted by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh stand disbanded – Aforesaid directions stand extended to any other FIR which may be registered against the petitioner hereafter in respect of the same subject matter as the said FIRs – Further, proceedings in respect of Crime No.199 of 2021 registered at PS Charthawal, Muzaffarnagar transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts – Order enlarging the petitioner on bail to remain in force – While, FIRs are not being quashed as prayed, but the Petitioner is at liberty to pursue his rights and remedies in proceedings u/Art. 226/s. 482, CrPC before the High Court of Delhi in respect of the FIRs which have been or which may be registered against him.

Criminal Law – Power of arrest vis-à-vis exercise of the power of arrest – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 41(1)(b)(ii) – Held: The existence of the power of arrest must be distinguished from the exercise of the power of arrest – The exercise of the power of arrest must be pursued sparingly – Police officers are vested with the power to arrest individuals at various stages of the criminal justice process – However, this power is not unbridled – In terms of s. 41(1)(b)(ii), the police officer in question must be satisfied that such arrest is necessary – Police officers have a duty to apply their mind to the case before them and ensure that the condition(s) in s. 41 are met before they conduct an arrest – Guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar must be followed, without exception.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 437, 438 – Bail conditions – Held: Bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them.