Absence Of Allegation Of Sexually Coloured Remarks: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Digital Harassment Case

“FIS Does Not Disclose Ingredients Of Section 75(1)(iv) BNS – Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary”, Kerala High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of digital harassment and unauthorized access to a woman’s Google account, observing that the First Information Statement (FIS) did not disclose the essential ingredients of the only non-bailable offence alleged in the case.

“The FIS does not disclose any material constituting the offence under Section 75(1)(iv) of BNS. There is no specific allegation that the applicant has made any sexually coloured remarks against the victim,” the Court noted while allowing the bail application.

Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath held that custodial interrogation of the accused was unnecessary and granted pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The applicant was the accused in Crime No.2035 of 2025 registered at Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki District.

According to the prosecution, the accused had allegedly harassed the de facto complainant, unlawfully seized her mobile phone, accessed her Google account, and changed the account credentials including the password, recovery mobile number and recovery email ID to his own.

It was further alleged that the accused accessed the victim’s personal photographs and information from the account and published private photographs without her consent with the intention of humiliating her. The prosecution also alleged that he repeatedly spread false allegations about the victim, threatened her and coerced her into sharing her live location, photographs and videos.

Based on these allegations, offences were registered under Sections 75(1)(iv), 78, 79, 351 and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 43, 66 and 66(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Apprehending arrest in the case, the accused approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Court Considers Prior Relationship Between Parties

During the hearing, the Court noted that the applicant was the Director of Hybrid Recruiters Private Limited, an overseas education and recruitment firm, and the complainant had previously worked under him.

The Court also recorded that the parties had been in a long-term relationship.

It was further brought to the Court’s attention that another criminal case had already been registered between the parties, and the applicant had already been granted bail in that case. The Court observed that these circumstances indicated the existence of prior disputes and enmity between the parties, which was relevant while considering the bail application.

Non-Bailable Offence Not Prima Facie Made Out

The High Court pointed out that among the offences alleged in the case, the only non-bailable offence was under Section 75(1)(iv) BNS, which relates to making sexually coloured remarks.

After examining the First Information Statement, the Court found no specific allegations indicating that the accused had made sexually coloured remarks against the complainant.

Since the essential ingredients of the said offence were not prima facie disclosed, the Court held that custodial interrogation of the accused was not necessary.

Consequently, the Court found the case to be a fit one for granting anticipatory bail.

High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail With Conditions

Allowing the bail application, the Court directed that the applicant be released on bail in the event of arrest upon executing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties.

The Court also imposed several conditions to ensure the smooth progress of the investigation.

The accused was directed to cooperate fully with the investigation, appear before the investigating officer every Saturday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. until further orders, and also appear whenever required by the investigating officer.

Additionally, the Court directed that the applicant shall not contact or influence prosecution witnesses, shall not tamper with evidence, and shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. The applicant was also restrained from leaving the State of Kerala without permission of the trial court.

The Court clarified that any application seeking modification or cancellation of bail conditions could be moved before the jurisdictional court.

Date of Decision: 05 March 2026