By Legal Desk | April 3, 2026
A Delhi Sessions Court has granted regular bail to Mujahid Jamal Shaikh, who was arrested for allegedly circulating an AI-generated morphed image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on social media.
Case Background
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts passed the order, noting that the investigation is complete and the accused’s continued custody is no longer required. The accused was booked under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—including Section 336(4) (forgery), 356(2) (defamation), and 353(2) (public mischief)—along with Section 66 of the IT Act.
The prosecution alleged that Shaikh had shared an AI-morphed photograph on his 'X' (formerly Twitter) account, depicting the Prime Minister bowing before a Bollywood actor. The police argued that the post was intended to promote disharmony and spread digital misinformation.
Key Observations by the Court
The Court highlighted several factors in favor of the accused:
Twist in the Proceedings: Forgery Inquiry
A significant development occurred when the defense presented a document as the "grounds of arrest." The police claimed this document was forged and not part of the official record. Taking this seriously, the Court has directed the DCP of the Special Cell to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the authenticity of the document, including a handwriting expert's opinion if necessary.
Discription: Bail in AI-Morphing Case: A Delhi Court has granted regular bail to Mujahid Jamal Shaikh, who was arrested for posting an AI-morphed image of PM Narendra Modi on social media. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler observed that since the investigation was complete and the electronic evidence (mobile phone) was already seized, further incarceration was unnecessary. The Court emphasized the accused's cooperation and lack of any criminal background. In a notable turn, the Court also ordered a preliminary inquiry into an allegedly "forged" arrest document submitted during the hearing. This case marks a critical legal intersection of AI-generated content, digital misinformation, and personal liberty.