"Freedom Of Press Cannot Be Shield For Irresponsible Journalism": Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to two accused persons in a case involving the alleged mob assault of two press reporters in Seemapuri, while making observations on the conduct of self-styled reporters and the need for a regulatory framework for the media.

Justice Girish Kathpalia was hearing the bail applications of Abid Ali @ Aabi and Furkan in connection with FIR No. 534/2025 registered at PS Seemapuri under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/304(2)/317(2)/109/74/191(1)/191(2)/190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Since the factual matrix was common, the Court heard both applications together and disposed of them by a common judgment.

Case Background

According to the prosecution, on July 4, 2025, at about 6:30 pm, the complainant and his colleague, describing themselves as being "from media," were recording video at an unauthorized colony in Seemapuri when they were assaulted by residents of the area. A child pulled the complainant's hair, following which some women and minors beat them up, and persons from the crowd snatched their camera battery and mobile phone and damaged their motorcycle. The FIR was registered the next day, on July 5, 2025.

During an earlier hearing on May 13, 2026, the prosecution alleged that when the reporters boarded a bus to escape, the mob, including the accused, entered the bus and continued the assault. The Investigating Officer had shown the Court video footage claimed to depict Abid Ali as one of the assailants who entered the bus.

Investigating Officer's Conduct Criticised

The Court noted that the status report filed did not conform to its earlier directions, and that the Investigating Officer had not appeared, being on leave, with the SHO also failing to appear personally despite directions from the concerned DCP. The Court observed that while lawyers were on strike, neither judges nor police could be, and found the investigating agency's failure to assist the Court in bail matters unacceptable.

Arguments of the Parties

Counsel for Abid Ali submitted that when the video footage was replayed in Court, it showed him wearing a black t-shirt and being pulled away from the crowd by his mother, not entering the bus. It was also submitted that the complainant and his colleague were not from any formal media house but were freelancing for a YouTube channel, and that the Investigating Officer had filed a false status report linking Abid Ali to an unrelated FIR.

Counsel for Furkan submitted that he was not present at the scene at all, and that the Investigating Officer had given contradictory accounts of what he was wearing, a white shirt before the Sessions Court and a brown t-shirt in the chargesheet. Counsel also pointed to the MLC of the injured, which recorded only "mild abrasions."

The APP for the State admitted that the Investigating Officer and SHO had not briefed him properly, but argued on merits that the accused deserved no bail given the assault on press reporters attempting to flee, and that the video played covered only a short duration and not the full assault.

Court's Observations

The Court noted that four other co-accused persons from the mob had already been released on bail, while the applicants had been in custody since July 5, 2025. It observed that nothing had prevented the Investigating Officer from collecting footage of the recording the reporters were doing before the alleged assault began, and that the prosecution's claim of the accused being seen entering the bus had turned out to be false, with contradictions persisting over Furkan's identification.

On the argument that the assault amounted to an attack on freedom of the press, the Court made broader observations on the state of contemporary journalism, noting that the proliferation of social media had led to a largely unregulated section of media where anyone with a phone and microphone could call themselves a reporter, often without training or accountability. It observed that such self-styled reporters sometimes created misleading narratives around citizens declining to comment, and that selective or sensational reporting targeting particular groups could deepen social divisions and trigger disorder. While affirming that press freedom must remain zealously protected, the Court said it could not become a shield for irresponsible journalism or content that jeopardises public order, and that the legislature should consider an appropriate regulatory framework balancing press freedom with accountability.

Applying this to the facts, the Court found that the complainant and his colleague had been recording a place of worship allegedly constructed unauthorizedly, which agitated local residents, and that the involvement of the present accused in the resulting mass fury remained "a grey area." The Court clarified that these observations were confined to the limited purpose of bail and would not influence the trial court's final decision.

Order

Finding no reason to further deprive the accused of their liberty, the Court allowed both bail applications, directing Abid Ali and Furkan to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Case Title: Abid Ali @ Aabi v. The State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) & connected matter