Furkan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

$~2 & 4
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.07.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1885/2026
ABID ALI @ AABI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Tandan, Advocate ( through
videoconferencing ).
versus

THE STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with SI Anil ( through video
conferencing .

4
+ BAIL APPLN. 2545/2026
FURKAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abdul Gaffar, Advocate ( through
videoconferencing ).
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with SI Anil ( through video
conferencing .






CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 1 of 9 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 17:59:36 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicants Abid Ali and Furkan seek regular bail in case
FIR No. 534/2025 of PS Seemapuri for offence under Section 115(2)/
126(2)/304(2)/317(2)/109/74/191(1)/191(2)/190 of BNS. The factual matrix
being common, I have heard both these applications together for disposal by
way of this common judgment.

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. On 04.07.2025
at about 06:30 pm, the complainant de facto and his colleague, claiming
themselves in the FIR to be “ from media ” were engaged in recording at an
unauthorized colony in Seemapuri. At that time, they were assaulted by few
residents of the area. One child came out of the crowd and pulled hair of the
complainant de facto and his colleague. Thereafter, some ladies and “ few 18
year old children ” beat them up. One of the persons from the crowd
snatched their camera battery and mobile phone. Some of the persons from
the crowd damaged their motorcycle also. On the basis of these allegations,
the local police registered the FIR on the next day, i.e., 05.07.2025.

3. On 13.05.2026 during the first hearing before this Court, the
prosecution side alleged that when those two reporters boarded a bus in
order to save themselves, the mob, including the present accused/applicant,
entered the bus and started assaulting the reporters. During the said hearing,
the Investigating Officer/SI Virender Kumar showed me a video footage of

BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 2 of 9 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca
, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 18:00:02 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10

the entire alleged incident and stated that the accused/applicant Abid Ali is
clearly depicted in the video footage as one of the assailants, who even
entered the bus after the press reporters had boarded the same to save
themselves.

4. The status report filed by the Investigating Officer is not in
consonance with the directions in order dated 13.05.2026. The Investigating
Officer/SI Virender Kumar has not appeared as he is on leave. Despite
repeated directions of this Court and even directions of the concerned DCPs,
the Investigating Officer being on leave, the SHO has not appeared
personally with record and has opted to just send SI Anil, who is not aware
about complete facts of this case. I am conscious that lawyers are on strike.
But neither the judges nor the police are ( nor can be ) on strike. Even as
regards lawyers, despite being on strike, some of the lawyers and all learned
prosecutors attached with this Court, keeping in mind the liberty of citizens,
have kindly appeared through videoconferencing. Such failure on the part of
investigating agency to effectively assist the court even in bail matters is not
acceptable.

5. Be that as it may, I have heard learned counsel for both
accused/applicants as well as learned APP for State.

6. On behalf of accused/applicant Abid Ali, it is submitted by learned
counsel that he never entered the bus and statement of the Investigating

BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 3 of 9 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 18:00:20 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10

Officer to that effect was false. When the said video footage was played
again in Court today, learned counsel for accused/applicant Abid Ali pointed
out from the footage that he is wearing a black t-shirt and is being pulled
away from the crowd by his mother wearing a yellow suit. It is contended
that the accused/applicant Abid Ali is not one of those who entered the bus.
Besides, it is also submitted that the complainant and his colleague were not
from any formal media house but were only freelancing for a YouTube
channel by creating sensation. Further, learned counsel for accused/applicant
Abid Ali takes me through paragraph 10 of his bail application, pointing out
that in response to bail application of the accused/applicant Abid Ali, the
Investigating Officer filed a false status report, alleging that the
accused/applicant is involved in FIR No. 392/2023 of PS Seelampur,
whereas the accused/applicant was never involved in that case.

7. Learned counsel for accused/applicant Furkan submits that the
accused/applicant was not even present at the time of the alleged incident,
neither in the bus nor in the crowd outside the bus. It is also submitted that
before the Court of Sessions, the Investigating Officer falsely alleged that
Furkan is the person seen in white shirt and pulling one of the complainants
out of the bus whereas according to the chargesheet, Furkan was wearing a
brown t-shirt. Learned counsel for accused/applicant has also taken me
through MLC of the injured, which reflects only “mild abrasions”.



BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 4 of 9 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 18:00:39 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10

8. Learned APP for State expresses anguish that the Investigating
Officer and the SHO concerned have not briefed him properly. In all
fairness, learned APP for State admits that nobody can be simply dumped in
jail without the investigating machinery following up the matter in Court.
On merits of these applications, learned APP for State submits that since the
accused/applicants assaulted press reporters, even at the stage when the
press reporters were trying to flee away from mob, they deserve no bail.
Learned APP for State explains that the video footage played in Court is
only of a short period and does not cover the assault by mob prior to the
complainant entering the bus. Learned prosecutor strongly emphasises that
such assault on freedom of press must be dealt with sternly.

9. Admittedly, four co-accused persons out of the mob have already
been released on bail. The present accused/applicants are in custody since
05.07.2025.

10. So far as the submission of learned APP for State that the video clip
played pertains to only a short duration when the complainant entered the
bus, and not the period prior thereto, nothing prevented the Investigating
Officer to collect from the complainant, the video footage of the recordings
which the complainant and his colleague were doing prior to their entering
the bus.

11. Even as regards the accused/applicants being depicted in the video

BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 5 of 9 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 18:00:54 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10

footage entering the bus, which was claimed on last date by the Investigating
Officer, today it appears that the said claim was false. As reflected from
above submissions, prosecution is not even certain about identity of the
accused/applicants in the sense that in the status report filed before the Court
of Sessions, the Investigating Officer took a stand that the accused/applicant
Furkan is the person wearing a white shirt as depicted in the video footage,
whereas in the chargesheet, the Investigating Officer took a stand that
Furkan is the person wearing a brown t-shirt.

12. It is on such material that the accused/applicants are languishing in
jail for past almost one year and trial is yet to commence. And to add to it is
the abovementioned lackadaisical approach of police in contesting these bail
applications. The accused/applicants cannot be kept in jail endlessly.

13. Then comes the argument of prosecution that the assault on the
complainant and his colleague was assault on freedom of press. Learned
APP, as mentioned above, does not deny that accused/applicants were not
from any accredited news agency but were freelancing for a YouTube
channel in the area. Despite sensitivity of the issue, the complainant
apparently opted not to take the local police into confidence before starting
their venture, though that cannot at all justify attack on them by the agitated
locals. But the larger issue, as raised by prosecution side, being that the
assault on the complainant was assault on freedom of press, I have
deliberated upon this aspect.

BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 6 of 9 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 18:01:12 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10

13.1 Freedom of press is an indispensable pillar of every democratic
society. However, in recent years, with rapid proliferation of social media
and digital platforms, a significant section of the media has become largely
unregulated and unorganized. Today, virtually anyone armed with a mobile
phone and a microphone can proclaim themselves to be a “reporter”, often
without any journalistic training, ethical grounding, or accountability.

13.2 It has become increasingly common for such self styled reporters to
aggressively thrust microphones at citizens, demanding instant responses.
When the person chooses to remain silent or refuses to comment, which is a
right of every citizen, the so called reporter often turns to the camera and
declares that the individual is evading questions. Such conduct creates
misleading public narrative and generates unwarranted public pressure.

13.3 Equally disturbing is the tendency of some media actors to target or
malign a particular social group through selective reporting, sensationalism
or unverified allegations. Such conduct has the potential to deepen social
divisions, inflame passions and, at times, even trigger communal
disharmony or public disorder. The media must recognize that with the
power to shape public opinion comes an implicit attendant duty to exercise
restraint, fairness and responsibility.

13.4 Of course, the freedom of press must remain zealously protected. But,
it cannot become a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation or the

BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 7 of 9 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626c
acca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879
65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 18:01:30 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10

dissemination of content that jeopardizes public order. The time has come
for the legislature to consider an appropriate regulatory framework that
preserves freedom of press, while ensuring professional accountability,
ethical standards, and respect for the rule of law, the rights of citizens and
the larger public interest.

13.5 Analyzed against the above backdrop, what appears in the present
case is that the complainant and his colleague were recording some video as
regards a place of worship in the area, allegedly constructed unauthorizedly.
That apparently agitated the local residents and they attacked the
complainant and his colleague. It was apparently a mass fury and as
mentioned above, involvement of the present accused/applicants in the
alleged assault remains a grey area.

14. However, I must add a cautious rider that the above observations have
been recorded keeping in mind the limited purpose of grant or denial of bail.
At the stage of conclusion of trial, the learned trial court shall obviously take
a final decision strictly on the basis of evidence adduced, without getting in
any manner influenced with the above observations.

15. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
deprive further liberty to the accused/applicants. Therefore, both these bail
applications are allowed and accused/applicants are directed to be released
on bail subject to each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 8 of 9 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 18:01:49 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10

Rs.10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the
concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicants.

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.16 18:02:02 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA


GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JULY 16, 2026/ dr/as


BAIL APPLNs. 1885/2026 & 2545/2026 Page 9 of 9 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18:18:10