The Chandigarh district court on Monday granted regular bail to a Hyderabad resident, 107 days after he was arrested in a case on alleged circulation of “misleading and scandalous” information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi through his X account.
Hassan Mohiuddin Siddiqi, 42, was given the bail with a rider that “he will not use his X account till the conclusion of the present trial”. The court said no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars anymore.
Additional Sessions Judge Rohit Watts allowed Siddiqi’s second bail application, noting that the investigation had been completed and the challan filed, with several of the sections invoked in the FIR, including those relating to forgery, no longer finding mention in the final challan.
The court also took note of the fact that around three months had elapsed since the dismissal of his earlier bail application.
Siddiqi was arrested on April 25 in an FIR registered on April 19, registered at Sector 26 police station under Sections 196, 356, 336(4), 353, 336(1), 336(3), 340 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act. His earlier bail application had been dismissed by the court on May 25.
An FIR against academician and author Madhu Kishwar in this matter was also registered by the Chandigarh Police at the Sector 26 police station in April, following a complaint filed by advocate and former BJP councillor Satinder Singh.
According to the prosecution, the allegations against Siddiqi were that he, “in criminal conspiracy with others, through his X account circulated and disseminated misleading and scandalous information” on the Prime Minister, with an “intention to severely injure and damage his dignity and reputation”.
The prosecution also alleged that the act had “serious tendency to promote disharmony between religious/regional groups and between different castes/communities and to cause public mischief”.
Police further alleged that Siddiqi “also did some digital manipulations, satisfying the ingredients of forgery”.
Arguing for bail, his counsel Abhay Joshi submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false.
“The applicant didn’t share any morphed video clip and didn’t make any comment. Even if the allegations are taken on their face value, applicant did nothing, as he only posed a question on his social media account to the artificial intelligence tool of X i.e. Grok to verify if the video was genuine or not. There has absolutely been no intention to malign the dignity of any constitutional authority,” Joshi argued.
The defence counsel further submitted that the investigation was complete and the challan had been filed, wherein only Sections 196, 318, 353 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) remained. The counsel also argued that the relevant sections mentioned in the challan are not for forgery as claimed by the police.
Opposing the bail, Public Prosecutor Ashok Gautam argued that sharing social media posts like these “cause a deleterious effect” on the society at large and that Siddiqi did not deserve the concession of bail and sought dismissal of the application.
After hearing the arguments, the court observed that since the final verdict has not been given, so “the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the alleged act and conduct of the applicant doesn’t strictly satisfy the ingredients of the offences, which find mention in the FIR, cannot be appreciated”.
The court also noted the fact that the investigation was complete and the sections relating to forgery and provisions of the IT Act did not find mention in the challan, coupled with the lapse of around three months since the earlier bail application was dismissed, “certainly constitute changed circumstances”.
It further recorded that his counsel had stated that he was willing to give an undertaking that he would not use his X account till the conclusion of the trial.
“Under these combined circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the applicant-accused behind the bars anymore,” the court observed, allowing the bail application.
Siddiqi was directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds of Rs 1 lakh, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the duty magistrate.
The court imposed other statutory conditions, including that he attend court in accordance with the conditions of the bond, not commit a similar offence, and not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or police or tamper with evidence.
The commission also examined the insurer’s contention that Goel had failed to hand over the second key and that his statement in the FIR about the vehicle being old and capable of being opened by any key demonstrated negligence. (File Photo) 
Share
