Interim bail and consolidated investigation granted where multiple FIRs arose from the same tweets; blanket gag on speech rejected.

Multiple FIRs based on substantially the same tweets could not justify fragmented custody and repeated proceedings where the petitioner had already faced investigation and obtained regular bail in one FIR; interim bail was therefore granted in the covered FIRs. The Court further held that cognate allegations arising from the same subject matter warranted consolidation, so the investigations were transferred to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police and the Uttar Pradesh SIT was disbanded. A blanket ban on future social media posts was impermissible because bail conditions must have a rational nexus to their purpose and remain proportionate; no gag order was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interim bail should be granted in relation to the connected FIRs arising out of substantially the same tweets; (ii) Whether the multiple investigations ought to be consolidated and transferred to one investigating agency; (iii) Whether a blanket restraint on the petitioner's future social media expression could be imposed as a bail condition.

Issue (i): Whether interim bail should be granted in relation to the connected FIRs arising out of substantially the same tweets.

Analysis: The allegations in the various FIRs stemmed from the same or substantially overlapping tweets, while the petitioner had already faced investigation in the Delhi FIR and had been granted regular bail there. Continued custody in multiple jurisdictions was found to create a coercive cycle of repeated proceedings, with the criminal process itself becoming punitive. The Court emphasized that arrest and continued custody must be justified by necessity and that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without sufficient cause.

Conclusion: Interim bail was granted to the petitioner in the FIRs covered by the order.

Issue (ii): Whether the multiple investigations ought to be consolidated and transferred to one investigating agency.

Analysis: The Court found that the FIRs disclosed cognate allegations arising from the same subject matter and that piecemeal investigations by different police stations would be unfair and burdensome. A consolidated investigation was considered necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure a fair investigative process. The existing special investigation team constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Police was rendered redundant by this consolidation.

Conclusion: The investigations were directed to be transferred to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police and the Uttar Pradesh SIT was disbanded.

Issue (iii): Whether a blanket restraint on the petitioner's future social media expression could be imposed as a bail condition.

Analysis: The Court held that bail conditions must bear a rational nexus to the purpose they serve and must remain proportionate. A general prohibition on tweeting would amount to a gag order and would disproportionately curtail freedom of speech and expression. Such a condition was held to be impermissible merely because the complaints arose from social media posts.

Conclusion: No blanket restraint on the petitioner's social media expression was permitted.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in part by securing interim bail and transfer of the connected investigations to a single agency, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue quashing or other remedies before the High Court having jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple FIRs arise from substantially the same alleged course of conduct, continued custody through fragmented investigations may be displaced by interim bail and consolidation of investigation, and bail conditions cannot impose a disproportionate gag on speech.

---