Delhi Court Grants Bail in AI Image Case of PM Modi and Shah Rukh Khan
A Delhi court has granted regular bail to a 34-year-old man accused of reposting an AI-generated image depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi bowing before Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan. The case, which raised questions about artificial intelligence, free speech, and criminal liability, was decided by the Patiala House Courts in New Delhi.
Court, Bench, and Date of Judgment
Focus Keyword used in the URL.
The order was passed on March 28, 2026, by Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler at the Patiala House Courts, Delhi.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from an AI-generated morphed image allegedly reposted by the accused, Mujahid Jamal Shaikh, on social media platform X on February 1, 2026. According to the prosecution, the image depicted the Prime Minister in a derogatory manner, allegedly showing him “bowing” before Shah Rukh Khan.
The FIR was registered on February 18, 2026, and the accused was arrested on March 18, 2026. He had been in judicial custody since March 20.
Table of Contents
Charges and Statutory Provisions
The Special Cell of the Delhi Police booked the accused under the following provisions:
- Section 336(4), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Forgery
- Section 356(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Criminal defamation
- Section 353(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Promoting hatred
- Section 66, Information Technology Act, 2000
The prosecution argued that the post was “objectionable and likely to promote disharmony.”
Submissions Before the Court
The prosecution maintained that reposting such AI-morphed content involving high-profile individuals could disturb social harmony.
On the other hand, the defence contended that the accused’s actions did not incite hatred or enmity. It was argued that the penal provisions were wrongly invoked and that the evidence in the case was purely electronic and already secured.
Court’s Observations and Findings
While granting bail, the court made several significant observations:
- “…the Court is satisfied that: (i) investigation qua the applicant is complete; (ii) police custody remand was taken but no recovery was effected; (iii) the applicant himself closed/ deactivated the X account on 14.03.2026 at the instance of the first IO (Investigating Officer), and later reactivated the same only upon the request of the present IO for the purpose of investigation”.
- “the applicant has deep roots in society, is the sole bread-earner of his family, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence”.
- “The offence alleged is limited to posting a single AI-morphed photograph of the Hon’ble Prime Minister in an objectionable manner alongside a film star,”
- “this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be released on regular bail.”
The court also noted that the evidence is primarily electronic in nature, the accused had cooperated with the investigation, and his mobile phone had already been seized.
Bail Conditions
The court granted bail subject to conditions, including:
- Furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety
- Not leaving the country without prior permission
- Appearing on all dates of hearing
- Not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
Additionally, the court directed that the accused’s social media account
“shall not be reactivated by the applicant unless express written permission is obtained from the trial court.”
Procedural Concerns and Inquiry Ordered
A key aspect of the case was the court’s concern regarding a disputed document related to the “grounds of arrest.” The police claimed that the document submitted by the accused was not part of official records.
Taking note of this discrepancy, the court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, to conduct a preliminary inquiry. The court further ordered:
- “If necessary, opinion of a handwriting expert may be obtained,”
Conclusion
The case highlights the growing legal complexities surrounding AI-generated content and its potential criminal implications. While the court granted bail considering the limited nature of allegations and completion of investigation, the procedural irregularities flagged by the court add another dimension to the ongoing proceedings.
ALSO READ:- “Supreme Court Slams West Bengal Over Attack on Judges During SIR Election Duties, Orders Central Probe”
LATEST POSTS:-
