Published Jul 30, 2026 | 4:26 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 30, 2026 | 4:26 PM
Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Synopsis: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonali Singh, while rejecting Siddiqui’s second bail application on 27 July, observed that the allegations against him were serious and that granting bail could disturb public order. “I am of the view that if bail is granted to the applicant, it will amount to disturbing the public order and it will promote enmity between the groups and other allegations,” the judge said in the order.
A Chandigarh court has denied bail to Hyderabad-based freelance journalist Hassan Mohiduddin Siddiqui, who was arrested in April for allegedly sharing a misleading social media post falsely claiming that a video of a man receiving a massage depicted Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The order comes even as another accused in the same FIR, academic and political commentator Madhu Purnima Kishwar, has not been arrested and was instead served a notice to join the investigation.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonali Singh, while rejecting Siddiqui’s second bail application on 27 July, observed that the allegations against him were serious and that granting bail could disturb public order.
“I am of the view that if bail is granted to the applicant, it will amount to disturbing the public order and it will promote enmity between the groups and other allegations,” the judge said in the order.
Also Read: Sexual assault case: IPS trainee Uday Krishna Reddy lands in police net
Siddiqui was arrested by the Chandigarh Police from Hyderabad on April 25 following a complaint filed by advocate Satinder Singh. According to the prosecution, he shared a video on X (formerly Twitter) showing a man receiving a head massage and falsely claimed it was a “leaked” video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The post also alleged, without evidence, that US intelligence agencies possessed compromising videos of the Prime Minister.
He was booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 196, 318, 336, 340, 353 and 356, along with Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act. Police argued that the content was provocative, objectionable and capable of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing public peace.
The case originated from a viral social media claim that was later debunked by independent fact-checkers, who established that the person seen in the video was not Prime Minister Modi but a travel vlogger receiving a routine facial massage.
The same misleading claim had been circulated by multiple social media accounts, including Madhu Purnima Kishwar, who was also named in the FIR.
Unlike Siddiqui, Kishwar was not arrested. Chandigarh Police instead visited her Delhi residence to serve a notice directing her to join the investigation. She subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected in May.
Also Read: Jubilee Hills CI faces suspension over sexual harassment, extortion charges
Seeking bail, Siddiqui’s counsel argued that he had been in custody for over two months, the investigation had been completed, and the chargesheet had already been filed. The defence also submitted that the offences invoked carry a maximum punishment of three years, that the prosecution’s case rests primarily on documentary and digital evidence, and that Siddiqui suffers from acute pancreatitis and is the father of four minor children.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution maintained that key aspects of the investigation were still unfolding, more accused were yet to be arrested, and Siddiqui’s release could hamper the investigation and affect digital evidence. The court agreed, noting that filing of the chargesheet by itself was not a fresh ground for bail.
“Presentation of challan in the court is not a ground to grant bail… especially when there are serious allegations against the accused,” the court observed while dismissing the application.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, With inputs from Sumit Jha)
