Chandigarh Court Denies Bail to Hyderabad Man for Alleged Scandalous Tweet on Prime Minister

In a recent judicial development, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) of Chandigarh , presided over by Sonali Singh, has declined the second bail application of Hassan Mohiduddin Siddiqui. The applicant, a Hyderabad resident, has been in custody for approximately two and a half months following his arrest on charges linked to a controversial social media post.

Case Background

The legal proceedings stem from an FIR registered on April 19, 2026 , at Police Station-26, Chandigarh , based on a complaint filed by advocate Satinder Singh . The complaint alleged that the accused disseminated a misleading video on the social media platform X, claiming it featured the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, in a compromising situation. The prosecution alleges that the post was intentionally published to disparage a constitutional authority and incite communal friction. The accused was booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act .

Arguments from Both Sides

Counsel for the applicant argued that the accused has been falsely implicated and that the investigation is largely complete, with the chargesheet already filed in court. They contended that because the evidence is primarily documentary and technical, there is no risk of the accused hampering the investigation. Furthermore, the defense pointed to humanitarian grounds , noting the accused’s responsibility as a father of four and his suffering from acute pancreatitis.

The prosecution, supported by technical inputs from the Cyber Crime cell in Chandigarh, vehemently opposed the bail plea. They maintained that the content was highly provocative and capable of disturbing public peace. The State argued that the accused acted with full awareness in targeting a constitutional head, and that investigations into other potential co-conspirators were still ongoing, fearing that his release might jeopardize the recovery of digital records.

Legal Analysis and The Court’s Reasoning

The Court’s analysis focused on the gravity of the accusations and the lack of new evidence presented since the dismissal of the first bail application in May . While the defense emphasized that the filing of the chargesheet constituted a change in circumstances, the Magistrate held that this in itself is insufficient to warrant bail given the serious nature of the offences. The court underscored that freedom of speech does not equate to an "unfettered license" to publish incendiary content under the guise of expression.

Key Observations

The ACJM expressed significant concerns regarding the impact of such digital conduct on social stability: * "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." * "The social media platform post is provocative, objectionable and capable of being inciting communal disharmony ." * "The presentation of challan in the court is not a ground to grant bail to the accused/applicant, especially when there are serious allegations against the accused/applicant."

Court’s Decision

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the second bail application , citing the potential for the petitioner to undermine public order and influence an ongoing investigation. This ruling reinforces the judicial stance that where digital content is deemed to promote communal disharmony and target constitutional offices, the courts will maintain a stricter approach toward the grant of pretrial relief , regardless of the investigative stage. This decision aligns with the broader judicial trend of scrutinizing social media misuse involving high-level public figures.