Punjab & Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by an author Madhu Kishwar (petitioner), seeking anticipatory bail in FIR registered for offences under Sections 196, 318, 336(1), 336(3), 336(4), 340, 353 and 356 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and under Section 66(C), 66(D), and 67 Information Technology Act, 2000, (IT Act), arising out of the alleged circulation of a misleading video concerning a constitutional authority, a Single Judge Bench of Aman Chaudhary, J., dismissed the petition holding that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and the petitioner had failed to make out a case for grant of the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
Background
In the instant case, the petitioner, an academician, had posted/retweeted a 14 second video clip on her ‘X’, handle with comments of her own, wherein she has a huge following and which was first uploaded by one Pradeep Kaur Dhillon on Facebook, Instagram and Youtube, from where the petitioner downloaded the same. The video got widely circulated with 1,74,000 views, and for which the respondent contended that she not only aided in spreading misinformation but also defamed the image of the Head of the Government.
The petitioner contended that she had merely shared material already available in the public domain, had no criminal antecedents, and could not be held responsible for comments made by third parties on social media. It was further argued that she had been falsely implicated and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Analysis and decision
The court relied upon P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, wherein it was held that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. The Court observed that the petitioner despite being served notice twice by the investigating agency, failed to appear, which highlighted her non-cooperating conduct
The Court observed that there exists a clear distinction between constructive criticism and tweeting/trolling to malign, cause aspersions or spread insinuations and for someone like the petitioner, having 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.”
The Court observed that the petitioner being a prominent media personality and scholar, cannot be oblivious of the impact of such a tweet, which created a stir with not only 1,74,000 views but also comments by other co-accused and public at large. The Court noted that this was not a solitary incident and she had been tweeting with different hashtags posts of sentimental sensitivity.
“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.”
The Court noted that the investigation was still underway and several aspects remained to be unearthed, including the origin of the post, the role of persons involved in its dissemination, and the nature of the relationship and familiarity between the petitioner and other individuals, particularly in wake of her comment addressed to Mehak, stating, “Baki aath bhi share kar dalo Mehak Behna”. The modus operandi adopted in the matter is yet to be unraveled.
The Court found it to be too soon to rule out the element of criminality involved, and denied to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and dismissed the petition. The Court, however, clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to the adjudication of the bail plea and would not influence the merits of the trial.
[Madhu Purnima Kishwar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, CRM-M-30428-2026 (O&M), decided on 29-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Kapil Sibal, Senior Adv, Sartaj Singh Narula, Senior Adv, Sumedha and Sidharth Grover, Tavleen, Vaibhav Jain, Advocates.
For the respondent: Amit Jhanji, Senior PP, Manish Bansal, PP UT, Shubham Mangla, APP for UT, Shubham Mngla, APP for UT, Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Dixit Bhardwaj and Sarasmi Budhiraja, Advocates
