REGULAR BAIL GRANTED WHERE IDENTITY IN VIDEO EVIDENCE IS INCONSISTENT AND CONTINUED INCARCERATION EXCEEDS JUSTIFIABLE LIMITS

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail considering the inconsistencies in identification and the duration of their incarceration.

The court held

The court allowed both bail applications, answering that the petitioners cannot be kept in jail endlessly based on uncertain material.

It also directed

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.

The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail stage and shall not influence the final trial.

01Facts

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.

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that on July 4, 2025, a mob in Seemapuri assaulted two freelance YouTube reporters recording at an unauthorized colony.

¶ 2

The prosecution initially claimed video footage showed the petitioners entering a bus to assault the victims.

¶ 3

The 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.

¶ 6–7

The SHO failed to appear or provide a proper briefing to the APP.

¶ 4, 8

The petitioners had been in custody since July 5, 2025.

¶ 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail considering the inconsistencies in identification and the duration of their incarceration.

¶ 12

ii.2. 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.

¶ 13

03Law Applied

The court considered the general principles of bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) and the fundamental right to liberty.

¶ 4

It 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.

¶ 13.1–13.4

The court also applied the principle that no person should be "dumped in jail" without effective assistance and clear evidence from the investigating agency.

¶ 4, 8

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115 Section 126 Section 304 Section 317 Section 109 Section 74 Section 191 Section 190

04Reasoning

The court found that the prosecution's identification of the petitioners was a "grey area".

¶ 13.5

Regarding Abid Ali, the video footage actually showed him being pulled away by his mother rather than entering the bus as the IO had claimed.

¶ 6

Regarding Furkan, the prosecution could not decide if he was wearing a white shirt or a brown t-shirt.

¶ 11

The court criticized the "lackadaisical approach" of the police, noting they failed to attend hearings with the record despite directions.

¶ 4, 12

While 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.

¶ 13.3–13.5