The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to author and social commentator Madhu Purnima Kishwar in a case linked to the circulation of a viral video allegedly containing misleading content about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The court held that the investigation was still at an early stage and several aspects of the matter required further examination.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 44 dated April 19, 2026, registered at Police Station-26, Chandigarh. The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act relating to forgery, circulation of false electronic records, cheating, and related offences.
According to the prosecution, a video clip was uploaded and shared on multiple social media platforms before being reposted by several users. The allegations against Kishwar stem from her reposting the video on the social media platform X.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Kishwar had merely reposted a 14-second video clip and was neither its creator nor the person responsible for its original publication. It was also contended that no criminal intent could be attributed to her actions.
Court's Observations
Justice Aman Chaudhary examined the material placed before the court and noted that the video had received widespread circulation and attracted millions of views after being reposted.
The court observed that the investigation was still underway and that important questions remained unanswered, including the origin of the post, the role of individuals involved in circulating it, and the nature of their connection with one another.
Referring to the allegations, the court said,
“The investigation is at a nascent stage and several aspects remain to be unearthed.”
The bench further noted that the comments accompanying the repost and the circumstances surrounding the circulation of the video would require detailed examination during the investigation.
While considering the plea for pre-arrest protection, the court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be granted as a matter of course. The order emphasized that courts must take into account the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation wherever necessary.
Decision
After considering the submissions of both sides, the Punjab and Haryana High Court concluded that the case did not warrant the exercise of its discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Aman Chaudhary held that the facts and circumstances of the case did not justify extending pre-arrest protection to the petitioner. The court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the bail application and would not influence the merits of the trial.
