Signing you in

Justice Aman Chaudhary rejected the petition filed under Section 438 CrPC, holding that it was not a fit case for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the nature and gravity of the accusations, Kishwar’s conduct during the investigation and the nascent stage of the probe.

According to the status report filed by the Chandigarh police, the video was originally uploaded on April 12, by one Pardeep Kaur Dhillon, a social media influencer from Amritsar currently based in the United States, on her Facebook, Instagram and YouTube accounts. It actually showed Jaspal Singh Sarai receiving a massage. Kishwar retweeted the clip on her X (formerly Twitter) handle @madhukishwar on April 18 after downloading it. The post received 1.74 lakh views and triggered widespread speculation and comments linking it to the Prime Minister.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Sartaj Singh Narula, appearing for Kishwar, argued that she had merely retweeted an “innocuous” 14-second clip without any ill-intent or forgery on her part. They emphasised her credentials as a seasoned academician with no criminal antecedents and contended that she could not be held responsible for comments made by others on her post. Previous tweets by her, they said, could not be considered as no action had been taken on them.

The Union Territory’s counsel, led by Senior Public Prosecutor Amit Jhanji, countered that Kishwar’s post was not a mere retweet. With over 18 lakh followers on X, she had significantly amplified the video’s reach and contributed to spreading misinformation that defamed the image of the “Head of the Government”. The police highlighted her alleged pattern of posting similar content targeting the Prime Minister in the preceding six months (Annexure A-1 to the status report) and her comment addressing one “Mehak” — “Baaki aath bhi share kar dalo Mehak Behna” — suggesting awareness of eight other similar videos.

The court noted that despite three notices served at her Delhi address (April 20, 26 and May 5), Kishwar did not join the investigation, while some other co-accused who had retweeted the same video had cooperated. The regular bail application of co-accused Hassan Mohiuddin Siddiqi, who had also retweeted the clip with additional comments, was rejected by the trial court and the sessions judge.

In a detailed 16-paragraph order, Justice Chaudhary observed that “there is an obvious distinction between constructive criticism and tweeting/trolling to malign, cause aspersions and insinuations”. He added that when such posts are made by someone with a “large social media following”, the repercussions are magnified and can “create disharmony, encourage separatist sentiments and put the unity and integrity at peril”.

The judge quoted extensively from Supreme Court judgments, including Jai Parkash Singh vs. State of Bihar (2012) and P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), to underscore that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases after considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the antecedents of the applicant and the need for custodial interrogation.

“Misconception and misinformation can be made to spread at lightning speed with the availability of all kinds of social media applications. There comes greater social responsibility whilst creating content and forwarding the same. Where seeing becomes believing, regulatory provisions are in an emergent need,” the court remarked.

Justice Chaudhary emphasised that the investigation was at a nascent stage and several aspects remained to be probed, including the origin of the video, the individuals involved in orchestrating its circulation and the nature of any coordination between Kishwar and others. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage would interfere with the probe, he held. The court clarified that its observations were not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

The order comes days after the video was deleted from several platforms.