Bail Denied in PM Modi Misleading Video Case: Chandigarh Court Says Serious Allegations Outweigh Filing of Chargesheet
A Chandigarh court has refused to grant regular bail to a Hyderabad-based man accused of circulating a misleading and allegedly fabricated video purportedly depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi on social media. Rejecting the second bail application, the court held that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not automatically entitle an accused to release on bail, particularly when the allegations involve offences that may affect public order, spread misinformation, and undermine public confidence in constitutional institutions.
The accused, Hassan Mohiduddin Siddiqui, was arrested in April 2026 after Chandigarh Police alleged that he had shared manipulated and misleading content on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). According to the prosecution, the video falsely portrayed Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a scandalous and objectionable manner and was circulated with the intention of misleading the public. The police further alleged that the post had the potential to provoke communal disharmony and disturb public peace by disseminating false and inflammatory content online.
While seeking bail, the defence argued that the investigation had substantially concluded and that the filing of the chargesheet reduced the possibility of interference with the investigation. It was also submitted that continued judicial custody was unnecessary because the prosecution had already collected the relevant evidence, including electronic records. The defence contended that prolonged incarceration before trial would amount to a punitive measure rather than a procedural necessity.
The Chandigarh court, however, declined to accept these submissions. The court observed that although filing of the chargesheet is an important stage in criminal proceedings, it cannot by itself become a decisive ground for granting bail. Bail decisions must take into account the nature and gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the offences, the potential impact on society, and the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or repeating similar conduct. In the present case, the court found that these considerations outweighed the argument based solely on completion of the investigation.
According to the prosecution, the accused faces allegations under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, including offences relating to promoting enmity, forgery, cheating, defamation, identity-related cyber offences, and circulation of objectionable electronic content. Investigators have maintained that the social media post was not an isolated act but part of a deliberate attempt to circulate false material capable of misleading viewers and harming the reputation of a constitutional authority.
The court also noted that offences involving digital misinformation require careful judicial scrutiny because online content can spread rapidly across jurisdictions and reach millions of users within a short period. Unlike conventional publications, manipulated videos and fabricated digital material may continue circulating even after deletion, making the consequences significantly wider. In such circumstances, the seriousness of the alleged offence assumes greater importance while considering requests for pre-trial release.
Legal observers note that the order reflects a broader judicial approach towards cases involving alleged dissemination of fake or manipulated digital content affecting public institutions and constitutional authorities. Courts have increasingly emphasised that while freedom of speech and expression remains a fundamental constitutional guarantee, it does not extend to the deliberate creation or circulation of forged or misleading material capable of deceiving the public or disturbing public order. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved, however, remains a matter for trial based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence.
Importantly, the Chandigarh court’s order does not amount to a finding of guilt. The court has merely held that, at the present stage of the proceedings, the gravity of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances justify continued custody rather than release on bail. The prosecution will still be required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt during the trial, while the accused will have the opportunity to contest the evidence and raise all available legal and factual defences.
The ruling is expected to be closely watched in future cases involving alleged online misinformation, manipulated videos, and digital content targeting public officials. It reiterates the principle that the completion of investigation or filing of a chargesheet is only one of several factors governing bail, and that courts may refuse release where the allegations are considered sufficiently serious to outweigh the ordinary considerations favouring liberty pending trial.
