MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Journalist in Alleged Video Forgery Case, Citing No Need for Incarceration

INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH – The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on November 17, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to journalist Rafiq Khan, who was accused of manipulating a video allegedly depicting a Government Railway Police (GRP) Head Constable accepting a bribe. The bench, led by Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, underscored the principles against unnecessary arrest, particularly for offences punishable with less than seven years imprisonment, and found that custodial interrogation was not required.

The case, Rafiq Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh , places the spotlight on the intersection of media ethics, criminal law under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the judiciary's role in safeguarding personal liberty against the backdrop of an ongoing investigation.

Background of the Allegations

The matter originated from an incident in June 2025 near the Ratlam Railway Station. According to the prosecution's case diary, Head Constable Mahendra Tiwari of the Ratlam Police Station issued a challan to an autorickshaw driver for obstructing traffic in a 'no parking zone'. During this interaction, Rafiq Khan, a local news reporter, recorded the event on video.

Subsequently, a video was broadcast on the "Tej India" YouTube channel, purportedly showing Head Constable Tiwari accepting a bribe from the driver. The constable filed a written complaint with the Station House Officer, alleging that the video was maliciously edited and manipulated. He contended that the altered footage was intended to damage his professional reputation and cause him social disrepute.

Based on this complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Khan. The charges were filed under Sections 336(3) (forgery with the intention to cheat) and 336(4) (forgery with an intention to harm reputation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Both offences are punishable with a term of imprisonment of less than seven years.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Daya Nath Pandey argued that Khan was merely performing his journalistic duties. He contended that the reporter had recorded the events as they unfolded and had previously lodged complaints against the GRP staff for alleged misconduct, suggesting the current allegations were "motivated". The defense maintained that the video sent to the YouTube channel was unedited and that Khan was being targeted for his work.

The State, represented by Public Prosecutor Romil Verma, opposed the bail application, arguing the gravity of the allegations which involved tarnishing the image of a police officer through fabricated evidence. The prosecution's stance implied that custodial interrogation might be necessary to uncover the extent of the alleged manipulation and the chain of distribution.

Judicial Scrutiny and Rationale for Bail

Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, after examining the case diary, delivered a nuanced order that balanced the needs of the investigation with the applicant's fundamental rights. The Court’s decision hinged on several key observations.

First, the bench pointedly noted that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of less than seven years. This fact brought the Supreme Court's landmark guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation into sharp focus. Justice Kalgaonkar reminded the police of their obligation to avoid "unnecessary arrests" in such cases and to comply with the procedural requirements laid out by the apex court.

Second, the court assessed the necessity of custodial interrogation. It concluded that based on the circumstances, Khan's incarceration was not essential for the investigation to proceed. The court observed, "The grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant will not cause prejudice to free, fair and full investigation."

Third, the personal circumstances and professional standing of the applicant were given significant weight. The bench took note that Khan is a professional news reporter with family responsibilities and a clean past criminal record, noting that a previous case against him had ended in acquittal.

"Considering his age, profession and status, there appears no likelihood of fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence," the Court stated.

This assessment led to the conclusion that Khan was not a flight risk and posed no threat of interfering with the investigation, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence.

Finally, the court acknowledged the potential for severe prejudice to the applicant if he were to be incarcerated pending trial. It recognized that pre-trial detention could lead to significant personal and professional hardship.

"Considering his clean past, age, status and profession, the applicant may suffer hardship and prejudice due to incarceration entailing social disrepute and humiliation," the bench observed.

While explicitly stating that its decision was made "without commenting on merits of the accusation," the Court found that "the contentions raised by the applicant carry prima facie substance," especially in light of his prior complaints against police authorities.

The Court's Order

Based on this comprehensive analysis, the High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It directed that if arrested, Rafiq Khan be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount. The bail is subject to standard conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, not influencing witnesses, and refraining from any act that could "disrepute" the GRP officials involved in the case. The order is set to remain effective until the conclusion of the trial.

This judgment serves as a significant precedent, particularly in cases involving journalists and allegations under the newly enacted BNS. It reinforces the judiciary's role as a guardian against arbitrary arrest and highlights the high threshold required to justify the curtailment of personal liberty, even when faced with serious allegations of professional misconduct.