In a couple of bail applications filed before the Delhi High Court regarding a First Information Report (FIR) for offences under Sections 115(2)/ 126(2)/ 304(2)/ 317(2)/ 109/ 74/ 191(1)/ 191(2)/ 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia granted bail to the applicants.
On 04-07-2025, the complainant and his colleague, claiming to be from media, were engaged in recording at an unauthorized colony in Seemapuri, when they were assaulted by few residents of the area. Based on this incident, the local police registered the said FIR on the next day. The prosecution alleged that when the two reporters boarded a bus to save themselves, the present applicant entered the bus and assaulted them. The applicants submitted that the complainant and his colleague were not from any formal media house but were only freelancing for a YouTube channel by creating sensation.
The Court noted that the status report by the IO was not in consonance with the directions in the order dated 13-05-2026 and also that the SHO had failed to appear with case record despite numerous directions. The Court stated that even though lawyers were on strike, they had appeared through video conferencing keeping in mind the liberty of the citizens, but neither the judges nor the police were or could be on strike. It was said that such failure on part of the investigating agency to effectively assist the court even in bail matters was not acceptable.
The Court noted that the present applicants were in custody since 05-07-2025 and that four co-accused persons out of the mob had already been released on bail. It appeared to the Court that the IO’s claim of the applicants being depicted in the video footage entering the bus was false. The Court found that the prosecution was not even certain about the identity of the applicants and said that it was on such material that the applicants had been languishing in jail for the past year. It was held that the applicants could not be kept in jail endlessly.
Regarding the contention that the assault on the complainant was an assault on the freedom of press, the Court stated that with the rapid proliferation of social media and digital platforms, a significant section of the media has become largely unregulated and unorganized. The Court said that “Today, virtually anyone armed with a mobile phone and a microphone can proclaim themselves to be a ‘reporter’, often without any journalistic training, ethical grounding, or accountability.”
Noting the conduct of such self-styled reporters of declaring individuals to be evading questions if a person chooses to remain silent, the Court said that this creates misleading public narrative and generates unwarranted public pressure. The Court stated that the tendency of some media actors to target or malign a social group has the potential to deepen social divisions, inflame passions, and at times, even trigger communal disharmony. The Court asked the media to recognize that “with the power to shape public opinion comes an implicit attendant duty to exercise restraint, fairness, and responsibility.”
The Court said that the freedom of press cannot become a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation, or the dissemination of content that jeopardizes public order. It was stated that the legislature must consider an appropriate regulatory framework that preserves the freedom of press, while ensuring professional accountability, ethical standards, and respect for the rule of law, the citizens’ rights, and the larger public interest.
It was noted that the complainant and his colleague were recording a video regarding a place of worship allegedly constructed unauthorizedly, which agitated the local residents who ended up attacking them. The Court stated that since it was a mass fury, involvement of the applicants was a grey area. Thus, the Court allowed the applications and released the applicants on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount.
