The Chandigarh court denied bail on July 27 to a Hyderabad resident arrested for posting a misleading claim about Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the social media platform X.
Judge cites public order concerns
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonali Singh explained that the allegations against the accused, identified as Hassan Mohiduddin Siddiqui, could provoke unrest if he were released. “I am of the view that if bail is granted to the applicant, it will amount to disturbing the public order and it will promote enmity between the groups and other allegations,” the magistrate wrote in the order.
The decision follows a prior denial of bail in May, with the court noting that no new justification had been presented. Although a chargesheet was filed, she observed that the filing alone does not merit bail.
Details of the alleged offense
Police in Chandigarh booked Siddiqui in April after a complaint by lawyer Satinder Singh. The complaint stemmed from a comment Siddiqui added to a video that showed a man receiving a head massage, which he claimed resembled the prime minister. The post read, “#BreakingNews: LEAKED video of Narendra Modi massage, reports coming that the Intel Agencies of US has tons of videos of him in compromising positions. Hey @grok this is real?”
Related: Madras High Court grants river legal rights
Authorities described the material as provocative and capable of inciting communal disharmony. The police report highlighted that the content was “objectionable” and could disturb peace and order.
In court, Siddiqui’s counsel argued that his detention had already exceeded two months and that the statutes invoked carry a maximum penalty of three years. The defense noted the lack of a clear link between the alleged post and any immediate threat to public safety.
Advocate Abhey Joshi represented the accused during the hearing. The magistrate concluded that the nature of the allegations did not satisfy the legal threshold for release, and the bail plea was rejected.
Earlier, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had also denied anticipatory bail to academic Madhu Purnima Kishwar in the same investigation. Kishwar’s X post similarly alleged that a facial‑massage video featured the prime minister, a claim later disproven by fact‑checkers.
Related: What Are Your Workers Rights When Moving to the UK?
This case reflects the Indian judiciary’s careful stance on social‑media content that could spark communal tension. It is not the first instance where courts have intervened over political satire or rumor‑spreading online. Past rulings have often balanced free expression against the risk of public disorder, especially when allegations involve high‑profile leaders.
Legal experts note that Indian law, particularly sections dealing with hate speech and defamation, can be applied broadly. The Indian Penal Code includes provisions that address “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.” How these statutes are interpreted in digital contexts continues to evolve.
Authorities have not disclosed whether Siddiqui faces additional charges beyond the initial accusation. The court’s order, however, makes clear that the filing of a chargesheet does not automatically translate into bail eligibility, emphasizing the judiciary’s focus on maintaining public order.
He remained in custody.
