Bail Denied in PM Modi Misleading Video Case: Chandigarh Court Says Serious Allegations Outweigh Chargesheet Filing

A Chandigarh court has refused to grant bail to a man accused of sharing on social media a misleading video purportedly depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, holding that the mere filing of a chargesheet cannot justify release when the allegations are serious.

Rejecting the accused's second regular bail application, Sonali Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh observed that presentation of the chargesheet "is not a ground to grant bail", particularly where the allegations relate to material allegedly capable of disturbing public order and promoting enmity between groups.

Why did the court refuse bail despite the chargesheet being filed?

Answering the principal argument raised by the defence, court held that the filing of the chargesheet did not constitute a fresh circumstance warranting bail. It noted that the accused's earlier bail application had already been dismissed by the trial court and his regular bail plea had also been rejected by the Sessions Court.

Court found that, apart from the filing of the chargesheet, no new ground had been placed before it. It observed that where serious allegations exist, submission of the final police report by itself cannot become a basis for granting bail.

The accused had sought bail in a case registered under Sections 196, 318, 336(1), 336(3), 336(4), 340, 353, 356 of the BNS (corresponding respectively to IPC Sections 153A, 420, 463, 468, 469, 470/471, 505 and 499/500) and under Sections 66-C, 66-D and 67 of the Information Technology Act. According to the prosecution, the case arose from allegations that a misleading video was circulated through social media with the intention of harming the reputation of a constitutional authority, disturbing public order and promoting enmity between different groups.

The defence argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and had remained in custody for nearly two-and-a-half months. It submitted that investigation was complete, the chargesheet had already been filed and only the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report was awaited. Since the prosecution case rested primarily on documentary and technical evidence, there was no possibility of tampering with evidence, it argued.

It was further contended that the complainant himself was an advocate, making it unlikely that he could be influenced by the accused. The defence also pointed out that similar social media posts had allegedly been made by others against whom no coercive action had been taken. It additionally relied upon the accused's medical condition, stating that he suffered from acute pancreatitis, and highlighted that he was the father of four minor children dependent upon him.

What did the prosecution allege?

Opposing bail, the prosecution submitted that the Cyber Crime Police had, through technical investigation, linked the concerned social media account and its associated mobile number to the accused. It alleged that he had posted a video portraying a person resembling Prime Minister Narendra Modi along with a caption falsely claiming that United States intelligence agencies possessed compromising videos of him.

According to the prosecution, the content shared by the accused was provocative, objectionable and capable of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing peace and public order. It further argued that the investigation was not completely over, as several aspects remained to be unearthed and other accused were yet to be arrested. The prosecution also expressed apprehension that the accused could threaten witnesses or interfere with digital evidence if released.

What were the court's observations?

After examining the record, court held that, at the stage of considering the case, only a prima facie assessment of the allegations was required and found that the offences under the BNS as well as the Information Technology Act were prima facie made out.

Referring to the allegations that the accused had posted the video and accompanying comments, the court described them as "serious allegations". It concluded that releasing the accused on bail would "amount to disturbing the public order" and would "promote enmity between the groups". Considering the gravity of the offences and seriousness of the allegations, the court held that no case for grant of bail was made out and dismissed the second bail application.

Case Title: Hassan Mohiduddin Siddiqui v. State of UT

Order Date: July 27, 2026

Judge: Sonali Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh