Delhi HC Grants Bail in Press Assault Case, Questions Investigator's Shifting Claims on Identity
Justice Girish Kathpalia granted bail to two accused held for nearly a year in the Seemapuri press reporters assault case, finding contradictory police claims about their identities untenable.
The High Court of Delhi on 16 July 2026 allowed the regular bail applications of Abid Ali and Furkan, two accused who had been in custody since 5 July 2025 in connection with an alleged assault on two persons claiming to be journalists in Seemapuri. Justice Girish Kathpalia, sitting singly, found that the prosecution's case against the applicants was riddled with contradictions in the Investigating Officer's identification claims, that four co-accused had already been released on bail, and that the trial had not yet commenced despite nearly a year of custody. The court also delivered pointed observations on the failure of the investigating machinery to assist the court in bail matters, and separately addressed the limits of the “freedom of press” argument raised by the prosecution.
The Incident and the FIR
On 4 July 2025, at around 6:30 pm, the complainant and a colleague were recording video at an unauthorised colony in Seemapuri. According to the FIR, they described themselves as being “from media.” While recording, they were assaulted by residents of the area. A child from the crowd pulled the complainant's hair. Some women and “few 18 year old children” beat them. One person from the crowd snatched their camera battery and mobile phone, and others damaged their motorcycle.
The local police registered FIR No. 534/2025 at PS Seemapuri on 5 July 2025 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 304(2), 317(2), 109, 74, 191(1), 191(2), and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Both Abid Ali and Furkan were arrested and have remained in custody since the date of registration of the FIR.
At the first hearing before the High Court on 13 May 2026, the prosecution further alleged that when the two reporters boarded a bus to save themselves, the mob — including the present applicants — entered the bus and continued the assault. The Investigating Officer, SI Virender Kumar, showed the court a video of the incident and stated that Abid Ali was clearly visible in the footage as one of the assailants who entered the bus.
Contradictory Identification Claims by the Investigating Officer
By the time the matter came up again on 16 July 2026, the prosecution's identification case had unravelled in two respects.
When the video footage was replayed in court, counsel for Abid Ali pointed to a person in a black t-shirt being pulled away from the crowd by a woman in a yellow suit, identified as his mother. Counsel contended that this showed Abid Ali was not among those who entered the bus. The court noted that the IO's earlier claim that Abid Ali was clearly depicted entering the bus “appears that the said claim was false.”
For Furkan, the contradiction was more stark. Before the Sessions Court, the IO had taken the position that Furkan was the person in a white shirt seen pulling one of the complainants out of the bus. However, the chargesheet itself stated that Furkan was wearing a brown t-shirt. The court found the prosecution was “not even certain about identity of the accused/applicants.”
Counsel for Abid Ali also pointed to a further problem with the IO's conduct: in response to the bail application, the IO had alleged in a status report that Abid Ali was involved in FIR No. 392/2023 of PS Seelampur, a claim that was said to be false, as the applicant was never involved in that case.
On the injuries side, the Medical-Legal Certificate of the injured persons reflected only “mild abrasions.”
Failure of the Investigating Agency Before Court
Justice Kathpalia recorded sharp displeasure at the manner in which the police conducted themselves throughout the bail proceedings. Despite repeated directions of the court and the concerned DCPs, the IO SI Virender Kumar was on leave and did not appear. The SHO, instead of appearing personally with records as directed, sent SI Anil, who was not fully aware of the facts.
The court acknowledged that lawyers were on strike on the date of hearing, but rejected any parallel for the police: “neither the judges nor the police are (nor can be) on strike.” The court noted that some lawyers and all prosecutors attached to the court, keeping in mind the liberty of citizens, appeared through videoconferencing despite the strike.
The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State admitted openly that the IO and SHO had not briefed him properly and that “nobody can be simply dumped in jail without the investigating machinery following up the matter in Court.” The court characterised the overall approach as “lackadaisical” and stated that such failure on the part of the investigating agency to effectively assist the court even in bail matters was not acceptable.
The Freedom of Press Argument and the Court's Response
The prosecution pressed that the assault on the complainants constituted an attack on freedom of press and that the court should deny bail on that basis. Justice Kathpalia engaged with this argument at length before declining to accept it as a ground to continue the applicants' detention.
The court found that the complainant and his colleague were not from any accredited or formal media house. They were freelancing for a YouTube channel. The APP did not deny this. The complainant had apparently not taken the local police into confidence before beginning their recording. The court was clear that none of this justified the attack on them.
However, the court went on to examine the broader freedom of press claim in the context of unregulated digital media. The court observed that with the rapid proliferation of social media and digital platforms, virtually anyone with a mobile phone can describe themselves as a reporter, often without journalistic training, ethical grounding, or accountability. The court noted a pattern of such self-styled reporters thrusting microphones at citizens, and when citizens exercise their right to remain silent, declaring on camera that the person is evading questions — conduct the court described as creating misleading public narratives.
The court added that selective reporting, sensationalism, and targeting of particular social groups can deepen social divisions and trigger communal disharmony. It called on the legislature to consider a regulatory framework that preserves freedom of press while ensuring professional accountability, ethical standards, and respect for the rights of citizens.
Applying these observations to the facts, the court found that the complainants were recording a place of worship allegedly constructed unauthorisedly, which apparently agitated local residents, resulting in what appeared to be a mass fury. The involvement of Abid Ali and Furkan in the assault remained, in the court's words, “a grey area.”
The court was careful to add a rider: all observations on the freedom of press question were recorded only for the limited purpose of grant or denial of bail. The trial court, at the conclusion of trial, was to take its final decision strictly on evidence adduced, without being influenced by these bail-stage observations.
Outcome
Justice Kathpalia allowed both bail applications. Abid Ali and Furkan are directed to be released on bail upon each furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. A copy of the order was directed to be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent to inform the accused/applicants.
Both applicants have been in custody since 5 July 2025. Four co-accused from the same mob had already been granted bail prior to this order. The trial has not yet commenced.