Facts
The petitioners filed for regular bail in an FIR registered on July 5, 2025, involving various sections of the BNS, including 115(2), 126(2), 304(2), 317(2), and 191.
Source reference: para. 1The prosecution alleged that on July 4, 2025, a mob in Seemapuri assaulted two freelance YouTube reporters recording at an unauthorized colony.
Source reference: para. 2The prosecution initially claimed video footage showed the petitioners entering a bus to assault the victims.
Source reference: para. 3The court found discrepancies: the IO filed a status report alleging Abid Ali was involved in a different FIR (which the applicant denied), and there were contradictions regarding Furkan's attire in the video versus the chargesheet.
Source reference: paras. 6–7The SHO failed to appear or provide a proper briefing to the APP.
Source reference: paras. 4, 8The petitioners had been in custody since July 5, 2025.
Source reference: para. 9Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail considering the inconsistencies in identification and the duration of their incarceration.
Source reference: para. 122. Whether the alleged assault on freelance YouTube reporters constitutes an "assault on the freedom of the press" sufficient to warrant the continued detention of the accused.
Source reference: para. 13Law Applied
The court considered the general principles of bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) and the fundamental right to liberty.
Source reference: para. 4It emphasized that the freedom of the press is an "indispensable pillar" of democracy, but noted it does not shield "irresponsible journalism" or unregulated media actors who lack ethical grounding and accountability.
Source reference: paras. 13.1–13.4The court also applied the principle that no person should be "dumped in jail" without effective assistance and clear evidence from the investigating agency.
Source reference: paras. 4, 8Reasoning
The court found that the prosecution's identification of the petitioners was a "grey area".
Source reference: para. 13.5Regarding Abid Ali, the video footage actually showed him being pulled away by his mother rather than entering the bus as the IO had claimed.
Source reference: para. 6Regarding Furkan, the prosecution could not decide if he was wearing a white shirt or a brown t-shirt.
Source reference: para. 11The court criticized the "lackadaisical approach" of the police, noting they failed to attend hearings with the record despite directions.
Source reference: paras. 4, 12While acknowledging the sensitivity of an attack on the press, the court observed that the complainants were unaccredited freelancers whose conduct might have agitated the locals, and concluded that "mass fury" should not result in the endless incarceration of individuals whose specific involvement is unverified.
Source reference: paras. 13.3–13.5Holding
The court allowed both bail applications, answering that the petitioners cannot be kept in jail endlessly based on uncertain material.
The court ordered the release of Abid Ali and Furkan on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each and one surety of like amount.
Source reference: para. 15The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail stage and shall not influence the final trial.
Source reference: para. 14Original Court PDF
FurkanvsState Of Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in