A viral AI-generated image shared on social media led to criminal charges and a courtroom battle in Delhi. The judge granted bail, citing cooperation with the investigation and primarily electronic evidence in the case.
Image Source: X
A bizarre social media post, a Bollywood superstar, and the Prime Minister; this unusual mix has now turned into a courtroom drama. It started as a viral AI image and now has ended with a Delhi court stepping in, granting bail, and even ordering a preliminary inquiry.
The controversy began when 34-year-old Mujahid Jamal Shaikh allegedly reposted AI-generated image on social media platform X. The image reportedly showed Prime Minister Narendra Modi bowing to Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan.
Advertisement
According to prosecution, the post, shared on February 1, 2026, depicted Modi in a derogatory manner. Police claimed the image had the potential to promote disharmony among groups.
Advertisement
The Special Cell of the Delhi Police booked Shaikh under multiple provisions. These included Sections 336(4) for forgery, 356(2) for criminal defamation, and 353(2) for promoting hatred under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He was also charged under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The prosecution argued that reposting such an AI-morphed image could disturb social harmony. The police treated the case as significant, especially given the involvement of high-profile public figures.
However, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts granted regular bail to Shaikh. The judge noted that the accused had deep roots in society and no prior criminal record.
Court observed that there was no likelihood of him absconding or tampering with evidence. It also highlighted that evidence in the case was mainly electronic in nature. Shaikh had cooperated with the investigation, and his mobile phone had already been seized.
The social media account linked to the post had also been deactivated earlier at the request of the investigating officer.
Shaikh’s lawyer argued that the repost did not create hatred or disharmony among any groups. The defence maintained that the police wrongly invoked serious penal provisions. After hearing both sides, the court decided that bail was appropriate.
Interestingly, the court also flagged procedural concerns. A disputed document related to the “grounds of arrest” came under scrutiny. The judge directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the authenticity of the document.
The court added that, if necessary, the opinion of a handwriting expert may also be obtained.
Advertisement
