The Supreme Court has granted bail to a 30-year-old security guard accused over allegedly obscene and derogatory Facebook posts about Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s wife and MLA Kalpana Soren, noting that he has been in custody for over a year, that the maximum sentence for the offences is three years and that custodial interrogation is not required.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to a 30-year-old security guard who had challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal of bail in a case over allegedly obscene and derogatory Facebook posts about Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s wife, Kalpana Soren, a sitting MLA from Gandey [Sahadev Uraon @ Sahadev Oraon v. State of Jharkhand].
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed the order on September 29, 2026 on a special leave petition, S.L. Crl. 15058/2026. The Bench noted that the petitioner has been in custody for over a year, that the maximum sentence for the offences is three years’ imprisonment, and that custodial interrogation is not required. The allegations are untested. This report is based on media accounts of the hearing, and the written order has not been reviewed.
The case
According to the prosecution, a Facebook account was used to upload a photograph of Kalpana Soren with obscene, vulgar and derogatory remarks. The post was noticed on August 28, 2025, and a police officer at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Ranchi lodged the case on August 29, 2025 on the basis of his own statement. The petitioner was arrested on September 6, 2025 and has remained in judicial custody since.
The case is registered under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 78 (stalking), 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 356(2) (defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66C (identity theft) and 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Jharkhand High Court rejected his bail plea on April 17, 2026.
The State’s case in the High Court
Before the High Court, the State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner used a fabricated digital identity to target a sitting woman MLA, and that the use of anonymity to launch abusive and gender-based attacks aggravated the seriousness of the allegations.
The petitioner’s grounds
In the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the High Court had not properly considered his prolonged custody and the stage of the case. His plea says that the investigation is complete and a chargesheet has been filed, that the prosecution’s case rests on electronic evidence already in its possession, and that he need not stay in custody. It says he cannot tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, that he has no criminal antecedents, and that the High Court did not examine the considerations under Section 483 of the BNSS, including the risk of flight, tampering and influencing witnesses.
The petition contends that the High Court rejected bail solely on the seriousness of the offence, which cannot be the only ground for refusing bail. It adds that he was granted bail in another case arising from the same alleged incident, registered on a complaint by the head of the Kanke Block Coordination Committee on February 13, 2026, and that neither case was registered at the instance of Kalpana Soren herself.
The order
The Court granted the petitioner bail and issued notice to the State of Jharkhand on his petition against the High Court’s refusal of bail. The bail conditions have not been reported.
Why it matters
The order weighs the length of custody and the statutory ceiling of three years against the seriousness of the allegation, in a case where the State had stressed anonymity and the targeting of a woman legislator. It treats the completion of the investigation and the reliance on electronic evidence as reasons why continued custody is not needed.
Bail is not a finding on the allegations, and the trial court will decide the case on the evidence. The Supreme Court’s reasons, and whether the bail is on interim terms pending its decision on the petition, will be clear only from the written order.
Case Title: Sahadev Uraon @ Sahadev Oraon v. State of Jharkhand [S.L. Crl. 15058/2026]
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari appeared for the petitioner.