The Madras High Court granted bail to YouTuber Anash Ahamed, arrested for cyber terrorism after urging viewers to wear the hijab. Justice P. Dhanbal noted Ahamed’s lack of prior criminal history and over 50 days of custody before setting bail conditions, including a Rs 10,000 bond. The case highlights tensions between freedom of expression and public safety amid religious sensitivity.
Chennai: The Madras High Court recently granted bail to YouTuber Anash Ahamed, who was detained in September by the Coimbatore police on charges of cyber terrorism. Ahamed had allegedly posted a video urging viewers to wear the hijab and share their experiences, which led to his arrest on grounds of disrupting public peace.
In the order issued on October 30, Justice P. Dhanbal allowed bail after noting that Ahamed had been held in custody for over 50 days without prior criminal records. The Court emphasized that its decision considered the “nature of the offense, lack of criminal antecedents, and the extended duration of Ahamed’s incarceration,” before setting conditions for bail.
Read Also: CBI Ordered to Update Case Diary in AAP’s Satyendar Jain Disproportionate Assets Case
“Considering the representation made on both sides, nature of the offense, there is no previous case pending against the petitioner,” the court noted. “Taking into account the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and all other factors, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.” As part of the conditions for his release, Ahamed is required to post a bond of Rs 10,000 and report to the police station every morning for the next month.
Ahamed was arrested on September 5 and charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act. Specifically, he faced allegations under Sections 352 (intentional insult to disrupt public peace) and 353 (statements causing public mischief) of BNS. The police also applied Section 66(f) of the Information Technology Act, which addresses cyber terrorism.
According to the police, the video was posted on social media with intentions to “cause disturbance to public peace” and “promote enmity between two religions.” This led the prosecution to oppose Ahamed’s bail, arguing that his actions constituted a serious public order concern. The state contended that such videos could ignite religious tensions, disrupt harmony, and compromise public safety.
Ahamed, however, maintained his innocence, stating before the court that he was “falsely implicated” in the case and that he did not intend to promote hostility or discord among communities. His legal team argued that the charges were exaggerated and did not justify prolonged detention.
The case has drawn attention to the boundaries of freedom of expression, particularly in the context of social media and religious matters. The Madras High Court’s decision to grant bail, despite the prosecution’s objections, underscores the importance of evaluating intent, criminal history, and the proportionate use of detention in cases involving online content.
By granting bail, the court balanced the need for public order with the fundamental rights of individuals, especially those with no previous criminal history. The conditions imposed on Ahamed reflect the court’s caution while also respecting the principle that prolonged detention should not be used as a punitive measure for individuals awaiting trial.
This case may set a precedent in the ongoing debate over online freedom of speech versus public security concerns, as courts continue to navigate cases that involve digital content with potentially sensitive implications.
Read the Order here:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES