Delhi High Court Grants Ajaz Khan Anticipatory Bail in YouTuber Feud Case, Cautions Influencers on Social Media Responsibility

New Delhi – In a ruling that underscores the judiciary's cautious approach towards pre-trial detention in cybercrime cases, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to actor Ajaz Khan. The case stems from an FIR registered against him for allegedly posting threatening and sexually explicit videos targeting the mother and sister of prominent YouTuber Harsh Beniwal.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while granting relief in Ajaz Khan v. The State NCT of Delhi , delivered a pointed commentary on the responsibilities of social media influencers, highlighting the pervasive and lasting impact of online content. The Court emphasized that when primary digital evidence is secured, the necessity for custodial interrogation significantly diminishes, reinforcing the cardinal principle of "bail, not jail."

Background of the Dispute

The case originates from a heated online feud between two social media personalities, Ajaz Khan and Harsh Beniwal. The State had registered an FIR against Khan, booking him under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for publishing obscene material in electronic form.

The prosecution's case was built on a video uploaded by Khan, which allegedly contained gender-based abuse, vulgarity, and defamatory remarks aimed at Beniwal’s female relatives. This act of "digital defamation" formed the crux of the complaint against the actor.

In his defense, Khan, represented by Advocate Khalid Akhtar, argued that his actions were retaliatory. He claimed his video was a direct response to a prior video uploaded by Beniwal, which allegedly featured derogatory language, abuses, and obscene gestures, and falsely labelled Khan as a "drug peddler" and "molester." Khan further submitted to the court that he had subsequently removed the contentious video from his social media platforms.

The Court's Rationale for Granting Bail

Justice Dudeja's decision to grant anticipatory bail was anchored in a careful evaluation of the necessity for custodial interrogation. The Court's reasoning provides a significant precedent for cases involving digital evidence.

1. Custodial Interrogation Deemed Unnecessary: The High Court observed that the core evidence in the case—the video recorded from Khan's mobile phone—was already in the custody of the Bombay Police in connection with another matter. With the primary evidence secured and no longer within the petitioner's control, the Court found little justification for taking him into custody for interrogation.

"In such circumstances, the need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not arise, particularly when the relevant documents are no longer within his control," the Court stated. This finding is crucial for cybercrime cases where digital footprints and devices often constitute the entire body of evidence. Once seized, the argument for custodial questioning to aid in evidence recovery weakens considerably.

2. Upholding the "Bail, Not Jail" Principle: The bench firmly reiterated the legal principle that arrest should not be a mechanical or automatic process. It held that the State's apprehension of non-cooperation from the accused was not a sufficient ground to override the fundamental doctrine of "bail, not jail," especially when the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses is three years' imprisonment with a fine.

"The arrest should not be mechanical/ automatic especially when no necessity is demonstrated for custodial interrogation," the order read. "The apprehension of the State of non-cooperation cannot override the principle of ‘bail not jail’."

3. No Apparent Flight Risk: The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to place any material on record to suggest that Ajaz Khan was a flight risk. The absence of such evidence, combined with the lack of need for custodial interrogation, tilted the scales in favor of granting pre-arrest bail.

A Judicial Admonishment on Social Media Conduct

While the legal findings focused on the criteria for bail, Justice Dudeja dedicated a significant portion of his order to the broader issue of online responsibility, delivering a stern message to social media influencers.

The Court recognized that both Khan and Beniwal command large audiences who are susceptible to their influence. It cautioned that the digital realm is porous and content, once posted, is accessible to a vast and uncontrolled audience.

“Any content on the internet is porous and accessible to a large audience. Every content on the internet must be uploaded with great caution, especially when, the uploader has a large audience and exercises influence in the society,” the judge remarked.

The Court poignantly observed that the act of deleting a post does not erase its impact. By the time content is taken down, it has likely been viewed, shared, and republished by followers, sparking debates and perpetuating the harm caused to the victim.

“Thus even if the content is deleted after it is posted by them, it would reach a large set of audience thereby leading to republishing of the same content/sparking a debate over the content among their followers, which eventually affects the victim,” the Court explained. This judicial observation serves as a stark reminder to influencers that the digital echo of their words can last long after the original post is gone.

Legal Implications and Takeaways

This judgment offers several key takeaways for legal practitioners dealing with cybercrime, defamation, and bail jurisprudence:

• Primacy of Evidence Seizure: In cases where digital evidence is central, the early seizure of devices and data can critically undermine the prosecution's argument for custodial interrogation.
• High Bar for Denying Pre-Arrest Bail: The ruling reinforces that the State must present compelling reasons, such as flight risk, evidence tampering, or the explicit need for custodial questioning, to justify the denial of anticipatory bail.
• Judicial Scrutiny of Influencer Conduct: The Court's obiter dicta on the duties of social media influencers can be cited in future litigation to argue for heightened responsibility for those with significant online platforms. It signals a growing judicial awareness of the real-world consequences of online feuds.
• Focus on Proportionality: The Court's consideration of the maximum sentence for the alleged offenses highlights the principle of proportionality in bail matters. Where offenses are not of the gravest nature, the preference is for liberty over incarceration during the pre-trial stage.

As online interactions increasingly lead to criminal complaints, the Delhi High Court's decision in Ajaz Khan v. The State provides a balanced framework, protecting individual liberty while simultaneously calling for greater accountability and caution in the digital public square.

Case Details:

Case Title: Ajaz Khan v. The State NCT of Delhi

Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3126/2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Khalid Akhtar, Mr. Bilal Khan, Md. Shadan, Mr. Ahteshanuddin

Counsel for State: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Insp. Sandeep Panwar and SI Naveen, P.S. Cyber Central