In a bail application filed before the Delhi High Court to seek anticipatory bail, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja granted anticipatory bail to Ajaz Khan while imposing certain conditions and cautioned those using social media regarding posting content on the internet.
The application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), concerning a First Information Report (FIR) lodged under Section 79 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
On 16-09-2024, Harsh Beniwal posted a parody video on his YouTube channel titled “A day with Najayaz Bhai”. The video contained a disclaimer saying that the video was a work of fiction and that resemblance to any person, living/dead, was purely coincidental. Thereafter, Ajaz Khan released a reaction video wherein he uttered sexually explicit remarks against Harsh Beniwal’s mother (complainant) and sister. Subsequently, another video was posted by Ajaz Khan wherein he hurled threats. On 23-04-2025, the said FIR was registered, and subsequently, a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was served on Ajaz Khan’s father, directing Ajaz Khan to appear before the investigating agency.
Ajaz Khan contended that he was unable to comply with said notice due to a medical emergency related to his father and that on 01-07-2025, he sent an email to the SHO of the Cyber Crime Police Station seeking an adjournment of appearance, which was acknowledged by the Investigating Officer who allowed him to appear at a later date.
In another case filed against him, alleging sexual offences, Ajaz Khan was granted anticipatory bail and was directed to stay in Mumbai by the police. He informed the respondents of the order passed by the Bombay High Court and requested a rescheduled appearance in Delhi.
An application filed by Ajaz Khan before the Trial Court seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by order dated 05-08-2025 on the ground that even though allegations against him were serious, he did not join the investigation.
The Court noted that Ajaz Khan’s stand was that he made the video as a reply to the defamatory video made by Harsh Beniwal and that he had later taken the same down. It was also noted that the Bombay High Court directed Ajaz Khan to surrender his electronic devices, and that the said devices could not be recovered from him.
Further, it was noted that both parties were social media influencers with large audiences, and that even if the content is deleted, it would reach a large number of people, which would lead to the republishing of the same content, eventually affecting the victim. The Court then advised that social media should be used cautiously.
The Court stated that the need for custodial interrogation of Ajaz Khan did not arise since the relevant documents were in the custody of the Bombay police and no longer within his control. Further, it was noted that there was no evidence on record to show that Ajaz Khan was a flight risk and that he was not required for any custodial investigation. The Court said that the State’s allegation of non-cooperation could not override the principle of ‘bail not jail’.
It was noted that Ajaz Khan was not only ready to join the investigation but also to give his voice sample before the FSL. Thus, it was directed that if arrested, Ajaz Khan would be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount. This anticipatory bail was subject to the cooperation and appearance of Ajaz Khan, among other conditions.
The Court said that the internet has made knowledge more accessible by intensifying its circulation, but it also has an audience of all age groups with access to all types of content. Further, it was emphasized that content should be uploaded with great caution, particularly when the uploader has significant influence in society.
The Court stated that the freedom of speech and expression granted by Article 19 of the Constitution must be exercised within the bounds of reasonable restrictions. It was also said that when speech crosses the line into insult, humiliation, or incitement, it collides with the right to dignity.
Thus, the application was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Khalid Akhtar, Mr. Bilal Khan, Md. Shadan, Mr. Ahteshanuddin
For Respondent – Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan