Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Madhu Kishwar In FIR Over Social Media Video On PM Modi

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday (May 29) refused to grant anticipatory bail to author Madhu Kishwar booked in an FIR for offences of forgery and demafation, over posting/retweeting a purported video on her X platform allegedly on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The court noted that the apparently, the video under scanner, was uploaded on other social media platforms, however, "as a matter of fact, it was only after the petitioner uploaded the same with her comment/s, that it garnered 1,74,000 views and speculations were made of it resembling the holder of a Constitutional post, which was confirmed when she further retweeted in that regard". Kishwar has been booked in an FIR under Sections 196(Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 318(cheating), 336(forgery), 340(Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine), 353(Statements conducing to public mischief), 356(Defamation) BNS along with provisions of the IT Act. Justice Aman Chaudhary in his order noted that as per the status report despite the first notice dated 20.04.2026, having been duly served upon the petitioner at her Delhi address, she failed to appear and the position remained the same after notices dated 26.04.2026 and 05.05.2026. This by itself showed her conduct of non-cooperating with the investigating agency, while some of the other co-accused, who had also re-tweeted the post with objectionable contents, had joined. As per the status report filed by Union territory of Chandigarh, the purported video was first uploaded by another person, showing a man "apparently receiving massage from a female". The court thereafter said:"There is, however, an obvious distinction between constructive criticism and tweeting/trolling to malign, cause aspersions and insinuations, and in case the same is by someone like the petitioner, who has a large social media following, the magnitude of the repercussions can be far from that can be fathomed. Such posts can create disharmony, encourage separatist sentiments and put the unity and integrity at peril. She, being a prominent social media personality and a scholar, as has been proclaimed on her behalf, cannot be presumed to be oblivious to the impact of such a tweet, which created a stir, as it attracted not only 1,74,000 views but even comments by other co-accused and public at large".The court remarked that had it been a solitary incident, one may have still given it another thought. However the court noted, that even on previous occasions the petitioner had been tweeting with different hashtags material/posts of "sentimental sensitivity" as is depicted in the status report.The court said that the petitioner could not demonstrate the absence of a prima facie offence warranting grant of anticipatory bail. "Given that, 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 added. The court said that in the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case being such that the investigation was at a nascent stage and several aspects remain to be unearthed, including the origin of the post, the individuals involved in orchestrating it and the nature of the relationship and familiarity between the petitioner and the other persons concerned.The court said that the modus operandi adopted in the matter is also yet to be unraveled, which forms part of the duty entrusted to the investigating agency.Observing that it was "way too soon to rule out the element of criminality involved" the court said it was not not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitionerIn case the same is by someone like the petitioner, who has a large social media following, the magnitude of the repercussions can be far from that can be fathomed. Such posts can create disharmony, encourage separatist sentiments and put the unity and integrity at peril,It was argued by the petitioner that the only allegation against her was that she had retweeted a 14 second video clip on social media platform X which was innocuous and without any ill intent. It was argued that the offence of forgery was not made out against her as she was not the one who prepared the video. It was argued that she is a seasoned academic who had authored many books and there were no criminal antecedents. She said that she cannot be held responsible for comments made by others on her posts. The counsel for UT argued that the post was first uploaded by another person on their Instagram, Facebook and Youtube; thereafter the petitioner had downloaded the video and uploaded it on her X handle where she had a huge following of 18 Lakh persons. It was...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Madhu Kishwar In FIR Over Social Media Video On PM Modi

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Madhu Kishwar In FIR Over Social Media Video On PM Modi

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers