Viral post falsely claims ‘jihadi’ behind petrol bomb attack, Alt News exposes misleading narrative
A video shared on social media platform X by an account named ‘Ex Muslim नदीम शैख़ (सनातनी)’ went viral with the caption, “The shopkeeper refused to lend. Jehadi threw a petrol bomb at the shop and both the shopkeeper and the girl were burnt.”
The CCTV footage quickly spread across platforms. The video showed a man throwing what appeared to be a petrol bomb inside a shop after an argument over lending goods. The explosion set the shop on fire and a small girl present inside the shop suffered burns before being rescued by locals. The locals caught the accused and beat up.
Fact-checking organisation Alt News debunked the communal claim, confirming that the attacker was Karan Boricha, not a Muslim as alleged in the viral post. Mohammed Zubair posted on Alt News platform and clarified that Boricha had thrown a burning bottle of adhesive, not a petrol bomb, and identified the viral claim as “fake news by a fake account pretending to be a Muslim.”
Fake News by a fake account pretending to be a Muslim. The Man who threw a burning bottle of adhesive into the shop that injured the shopkeeper and his four-year-old daughter is Karan Boricha. Not a 'Jihadi' Muslim as claimed.@CP_RajkotCity @SP_RajkotRural pic.twitter.com/CFDjKvjs4Y
— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) October 14, 2025
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Unemployed 'youngsters like cockroaches' become media, activists; attack system: CJI
New Delhi (PTI): Likening some unemployed youngsters to cockroaches, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday said they go on to "become" media, social media and RTI activists and start attacking the system.
The comments came while a bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was pulling up a lawyer for "pursuing" a senior advocate designation. It said there were already "parasites" in society who attack the system and asked the petitioner whether he wanted to join hands with them.
"The entire world may be eligible to become senior (advocate), but at least you are not entitled," the bench told the petitioner lawyer.
A visibly anguished CJI observed that if the Delhi High Court would confer senior advocate designation upon the petitioner, the apex court would set that aside seeing his professional conduct.
The CJI also referred to the kind of language used by the petitioner on Facebook.
"There are already parasites of society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them?" he said.
"There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment or have any place in profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists and they start attacking everyone," he said.
The bench also asked the petitioner whether he did not have any other litigation.
"Is this the conduct of a person who seeks to be designated as a senior advocate?" the bench asked.
It said senior advocate designation is something that is conferred on a person and is not to be pursued.
"You are pursuing it. Does it look proper?" the top court said, asking whether a senior advocate designation was a status symbol to be kept ornamentally.
It also observed that it wanted to ask the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to verify the degrees of many of those who were wearing black robes as there were serious doubts over the genuineness of their degrees.
It said the Bar Council of India would never do anything on this issue as they "need their votes".
The petitioner apologised to the bench and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The bench allowed the withdrawal of the petition.
