Freedom of Speech Cannot Override Individual Dignity; Actor Granted Bail in Explicit Video Case: Delhi High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja granted anticipatory bail to an actor accused of posting a sexually explicit reaction video against a social media influencer’s family following a parody video released by the influencer. The Court noted that the petitioner’s electronic devices were already seized by the Mumbai Police, and his custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The Delhi High Court has sounded a note of caution for social media users, particularly influencers posting online who command large audiences, observing that while freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution is fundamental, it cannot override or diminish individual dignity.
The case arose from an online altercation between two social media personalities — petitioner Ajaz Khan, an actor and digital influencer with over 5 million Instagram followers, and the son of the complainant, YouTuber Harsh Beniwal, who has over 16 million subscribers on his channel. According to the complaint, a parody video titled “A Day With Najayaz Bhai” was uploaded by Harsh Beniwal on September 16, 2024, which included a disclaimer stating that it was a work of fiction and any resemblance to persons living or dead was coincidental. Following the upload, Ajaz Khan allegedly released a reaction video containing “sexually explicit remarks” against the complainant and her daughter, followed by another video containing alleged threats.
On April 23, 2025, FIR No. 41/2025 was registered at Cyber Police Station under Sections 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 509 IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was issued notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which he allegedly failed to comply with due to his father’s ill health and subsequent legal obligations in another case pending before the Bombay High Court. His application for anticipatory bail was initially rejected by the Trial Court on August 5, 2025. The petitioner thereafter approached the Delhi High Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (read with the BNSS).
Justice Ravinder Dudeja recorded that both the petitioner and the complainant’s son are “social media influencers, having a large set of audiences”, and observed that the nature of their online interactions carried significant societal influence. The Court noted that “even if the content is deleted after it is posted by them, it would reach a large set of audience thereby leading to republishing of the same content or sparking a debate over the content among their followers, which eventually affects the victim.” The judgment stated the need for caution in online communication, stating that “one should cautiously use social media before posting any content, as it might adversely affect not only the particular individual but their respective fans also at the same time.”
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s devices — including his iPhone and iPad — had already been surrendered to the Borivali Police in compliance with directions from the Bombay High Court in another criminal proceeding. Given that the digital evidence in question was already in the custody of the authorities, the Court held that “the need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not arise, particularly when the relevant documents are no longer within his control.”
Further, Justice Dudeja found no material to suggest that the petitioner posed a flight risk or that his arrest was necessary. The order stated, “Arrest should not be mechanical or automatic especially when no necessity is demonstrated for custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the State of non-cooperation cannot override the principle of ‘bail not jail’.” The Court also observed that the offences alleged carried a maximum sentence of three years, thus falling within the parameters where anticipatory bail could be considered.
In a broader reflection, the Court observed that the internet, while making knowledge easily accessible, has also amplified the reach and potential harm of online speech. It stated that “every content on the internet must be uploaded with great caution, especially when the uploader has a large audience and exercises influence in the society.” The Court stated that the “freedom of speech and expression granted by the Constitution under Article 19 must be exercised within the bounds of reasonable restrictions.” The judgment concluded with a reminder that “when the speech crosses the line into insult, humiliation or incitement, it collides with the right to dignity.”
Justice Dudeja allowed the bail application and directed that in the event of arrest; Ajaz Khan be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting or investigating officer. The Court further imposed several conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
The petitioner “shall cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer of the case as and when required.” He must “not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.” The petitioner was directed to provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times, and to inform the authorities by way of affidavit of any change in residential address or contact details.
Ther petitioner “shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court.” Ajaz Khan was also required to “cooperate in providing his voice samples to the investigating agency as and when directed.” The Court added that he must “surrender his mobile phone as and when received back from the Bombay Police.”
The Court issued a word of caution directed at all social media users, noting that “the free speech should therefore not trample on dignity and vice versa.” Justice Dudeja held that liberty and responsibility must go hand in hand, and that “nothing stated in this order shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case.” The bail application was accordingly disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Khalid Akhtar, Mr. Bilal Khan, Md. Shadan, and Mr. Ahteshanuddin, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Insp. Sandeep Panwar and SI Naveen, Police Station Cyber Central.
Case Title: Ajaz Khan v. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8962
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3126/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
