Video Did Not Support Police Claim That Accused Entered Bus to Assault Reporters: Delhi High Court Grants Bail After One Year in Custody
Facts
On 4 July 2025, at approximately 6:30 PM, the complainant and his colleague were recording videos in an unauthorised colony in Seemapuri, Delhi. They described themselves in the First Information Report as persons “from media,” though it was later acknowledged that they were freelancing for a YouTube channel rather than working for an accredited news organisation.
The recording reportedly concerned a place of worship allegedly constructed without authorisation. Local residents became agitated, and a crowd assaulted the two reporters.
According to the First Information Report, a child pulled their hair, after which certain women and young persons beat them. Someone from the crowd allegedly snatched their camera battery and mobile phone, while other persons damaged their motorcycle.
The prosecution subsequently alleged that the reporters boarded a bus to escape and that members of the mob, including Abid Ali and Furkan, entered the bus and continued assaulting them.
First Information Report No. 534/2025 was registered at Seemapuri Police Station under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to hurt, wrongful restraint, snatching, receiving stolen property, attempt to murder, assault on a woman and unlawful assembly.
Abid Ali and Furkan were arrested on 5 July 2025 and remained in custody for almost one year. Their trial had not commenced by the time the Delhi High Court considered their regular-bail applications.
At an earlier hearing on 13 May 2026, the investigating officer showed the Court video footage and claimed that it clearly depicted Abid Ali entering the bus and assaulting the reporters.
When the video was replayed at the final hearing, however, it appeared that Abid Ali, wearing a black T-shirt, was being pulled away from the crowd by his mother, who was wearing a yellow suit. The Court did not find support for the earlier assertion that he had entered the bus.
The prosecution’s identification of Furkan was also inconsistent. Before the Sessions Court, the investigating officer allegedly identified Furkan as the person in a white shirt pulling a reporter out of the bus. In the chargesheet, however, Furkan was described as wearing a brown T-shirt.
The injured persons’ medical records reflected only mild abrasions.
Four other accused persons from the alleged mob had already been granted bail. Abid Ali and Furkan therefore sought parity and release from continued custody.
Issues
- Whether the video footage prima facie established the involvement of Abid Ali and Furkan in the assault.
- Whether the prosecution had consistently and reliably identified the applicants in the video.
- Whether Abid Ali was shown entering the bus and continuing the assault, as previously claimed by the investigating officer.
- Whether Furkan was present at the scene or inside the bus.
- Whether the applicants could remain incarcerated when the trial had not commenced despite nearly one year of custody.
- Whether bail should be granted on parity because four co-accused had already been released.
- What effect should be given to the investigating officer and Station House Officer’s failure to properly brief the prosecutor and assist the Court.
- Whether the allegation that the incident constituted an attack on press freedom justified continued detention despite uncertainty regarding the applicants’ involvement.
- How freedom of the press should be balanced with concerns about unregulated and irresponsible digital journalism.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Abid Ali’s Arguments
Abid Ali argued that he never entered the bus and that the investigating officer’s earlier statement to the contrary was false.
His counsel referred to the video and identified Abid as the person wearing a black T-shirt. The video allegedly showed his mother, dressed in yellow, pulling him away from the crowd rather than him joining the assault inside the bus.
Abid also alleged that the investigating officer filed an incorrect status report claiming his involvement in another case—First Information Report No. 392/2023 at Seelampur Police Station—although he had never been involved in that matter.
His counsel submitted that the complainants were not employees of an established media organisation. They were freelance content creators working for a YouTube channel and had entered the area to create sensational content.
Furkan’s Arguments
Furkan argued that he was not present at the place of occurrence, either in the crowd or inside the bus.
His counsel highlighted the prosecution’s inconsistent identification. The investigating officer earlier claimed that Furkan was the person wearing a white shirt in the video, whereas the chargesheet described him as wearing a brown T-shirt.
Furkan also relied on the medical examination reports, which recorded only mild abrasions, to dispute the seriousness of the allegations and the applicability of the graver penal provisions.
Both applicants relied on their lengthy custody, absence of trial progress and the grant of bail to four co-accused.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the applicants participated in an assault upon reporters who were carrying out journalistic work.
According to the prosecution, the reporters were attacked even after they attempted to escape by boarding a bus. Such conduct amounted to a serious attack on freedom of the press and required a stern response.
The Additional Public Prosecutor explained that the video shown to the Court covered only a short period surrounding the reporters’ entry into the bus. It did not depict the earlier assault allegedly committed outside.
The State therefore contended that the absence of the complete assault from the footage did not exonerate the applicants.
At the same time, the prosecutor candidly informed the Court that the investigating officer and the Station House Officer had not properly briefed him. He acknowledged that no person could simply be kept in jail without the investigating agency diligently following and presenting the case before the Court.
Analysis of the Law
Bail Cannot Become Pre-Trial Punishment
The purpose of custody pending trial is to secure the accused’s presence, protect the investigation and prevent interference with evidence or witnesses. It is not intended to punish an accused before guilt is established.
Where an accused has spent a substantial period in custody, the trial has not commenced and the prosecution material itself contains uncertainty, continued detention requires compelling justification.
Prima Facie Assessment of Evidence
At the bail stage, the Court does not conduct a final trial or definitively determine guilt. It may nevertheless examine whether the available material prima facie connects the accused with the alleged offence.
Here, the Court viewed the video and found that it did not support the investigating officer’s previous claim that Abid Ali entered the bus. The conflicting descriptions of Furkan also weakened the prosecution’s prima facie identification.
Parity with Co-Accused
Parity is a relevant consideration where similarly placed co-accused have already received bail. It is not an absolute rule, as courts must compare the individual roles attributed to each person.
In the present case, four other members of the alleged mob had already been released, while the roles of Abid Ali and Furkan remained uncertain.
Duty of the Investigating Agency to Assist the Court
Bail proceedings directly concern personal liberty. Investigating officers are therefore expected to remain available, provide accurate records and properly brief the prosecutor.
The investigating officer’s absence on leave did not justify the failure of the Station House Officer or another fully informed officer to appear. The ongoing lawyers’ strike was also irrelevant to the police’s duty to assist the Court.
Freedom of the Press and Responsible Journalism
Freedom of the press is an indispensable part of democratic society. An attack on a journalist cannot be justified merely because local residents disagree with the subject or method of reporting.
The Court, however, distinguished legitimate press freedom from irresponsible or intimidatory conduct by unregulated digital content creators.
Freedom of expression does not entitle a person to force citizens to answer questions, create misleading narratives from their silence, spread unverified allegations or inflame social divisions.
The need to protect journalism did not permit the Court to ignore uncertainty about whether the particular applicants had participated in the assault.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment did not base its decision on any specifically cited reported precedent. It applied settled bail principles concerning:
- The protection of personal liberty;
- The prohibition against indefinite pre-trial incarceration;
- Prima facie evaluation of prosecution material;
- Parity with co-accused;
- The limited nature of observations at the bail stage; and
- The distinction between allegations and proof.
The Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to deciding bail. The trial court was directed to determine guilt solely on the evidence ultimately produced, without being influenced by the High Court’s prima facie findings.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court first expressed displeasure with the investigating agency’s failure to properly assist it.
Despite repeated judicial directions and instructions from senior police officials, neither the investigating officer nor the Station House Officer appeared with the complete record. Instead, another officer unfamiliar with the full facts was sent.
The Court observed that although lawyers were on strike, judges and police were not—and could not be—on strike. Bail matters involving citizens’ liberty required effective and responsible assistance.
On the merits, the Court found the video identification doubtful.
At the earlier hearing, the investigating officer had asserted that Abid Ali could be seen entering the bus and assaulting the reporters. When the footage was replayed, it instead appeared that Abid was being pulled away from the crowd by his mother.
The prosecution also lacked a consistent position regarding Furkan. Identifying him first through a white shirt and later through a brown T-shirt created a serious uncertainty about whether he was present and, if so, what role he played.
The State argued that the footage covered only a short period and did not include the initial assault. The Court observed that nothing prevented the investigating officer from obtaining the complete recordings made by the complainants before they entered the bus.
The Court also considered that:
- The injuries were described as mild abrasions;
- Four co-accused had already received bail;
- Both applicants had been in custody since 5 July 2025;
- Nearly one year had passed;
- The trial had not started; and
- Their involvement remained a “grey area.”
The Court accepted that violence against reporters could never be justified. Nevertheless, the importance of press freedom could not substitute for reliable evidence against the particular accused.
It also made broader observations about the rapid growth of unregulated digital journalism. The Court noted that persons without professional training or ethical accountability could declare themselves reporters, aggressively question citizens, portray refusal to answer as evasion and publish selective or inflammatory material.
It suggested that the legislature consider a regulatory framework that preserves press freedom while promoting professional accountability, ethical standards, respect for citizens’ rights and protection of public order.
These observations did not excuse the alleged attack. They provided context for the Court’s rejection of the prosecution’s broad argument that the press-freedom dimension alone justified continued incarceration.
Given the uncertain evidence and prolonged pre-trial detention, the Court found no reason to deprive the applicants of liberty any further.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the regular-bail applications filed by Abid Ali and Furkan.
Both applicants were directed to be released upon furnishing personal bonds of ₹10,000 each, with one surety each for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The Court ordered immediate transmission of the judgment to the concerned Jail Superintendent so that the applicants could be informed and released in accordance with law.
It clarified that all observations concerning the evidence and the applicants’ involvement were limited to bail. The trial court must decide the case independently on the evidence produced during trial.
Case Details
Case: Abid Ali alias Aabi v. State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi; Furkan v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Numbers: Bail Application 1885/2026 and Bail Application 2545/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 16 July 2026
Result: Both regular-bail applications allowed; applicants ordered to be released on personal bonds of ₹10,000 each with one surety each in the same amount.
