A Delhi court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Michael Ashish Mukherjee, who stands accused of crafting an elaborate scheme to frame his brother-in-law by sending fictitious emails to U.S. law enforcement agencies. These emails falsely claimed responsibility for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative political commentator based in the United States.
The decision was handed down by Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh at the Saket Court. The judge highlighted the grave nature of the allegations, describing them as a ‘highly sophisticated, vindictive, and perilous cybercrime with international ramifications’.
The court’s findings state that Mukherjee allegedly created fake email accounts to impersonate his brother-in-law, Prateek Paul. Through these accounts, he reportedly sent false confessions to agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and other U.S. authorities, claiming responsibility for Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
The case has its roots in a matrimonial dispute between Mukherjee and his wife, who has initiated divorce proceedings citing cruelty and adultery. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against Mukherjee following a complaint by Paul, who is pursuing a PhD at Columbia University in New York.
To lend credibility to the fabricated claims, Mukherjee allegedly included Paul’s passport, visa, and New York identity card in the emails. The prosecution indicates that these actions prompted DHS agents to visit Paul’s New York residence on October 8, 2025, to detain him.
More Read
Further allegations against Mukherjee include submitting false accusations to Qatari immigration authorities against his wife and filing a fraudulent tax evasion complaint with the Indian Income Tax Department against his mother-in-law, involving an alleged ₹5 crore scam.
The court noted that Mukherjee failed to disclose his previous conviction by the Delhi High Court for contempt of court, which had also issued non-bailable warrants against him. Moreover, the court expressed concerns that granting pre-arrest bail could impede the recovery of vital digital evidence.
In light of these considerations, the court decided to deny Mukherjee’s plea for anticipatory bail.
