-
by Admin
23 January 2026 3:42 PM
"Prior intimacy does not confer any licence to violate privacy, dignity or autonomy" — Jharkhand High Court delivered a significant ruling denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of weaponising personal intimacy for cyber harassment, blackmail, and privacy violations. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, sitting in the criminal jurisdiction, refused to exercise judicial discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), terming the petitioner’s conduct as “transcending the boundaries of lawful interaction.”
The case, registered as Cyber P.S. Case No. 14/2025, involves disturbing allegations of digital identity misuse, obscene content circulation, and online defamation through fake email and social media accounts, allegedly created and operated by the petitioner, following the breakdown of a prior consensual relationship with the informant.
"Friendship or intimacy is no shield to exploit another’s vulnerability": Court warns against misuse of digital platforms in personal fallouts
The Court's principal observation centered around the abuse of digital mediums to harass and humiliate, despite the consensual nature of the past relationship. Rejecting the defence argument that the relationship was mutual and consensual, the Court stressed that:
“If a person is in friendship, it does not entitle one party to exploit the other’s vulnerability or dignity.”
The petitioner argued that the FIR was falsely filed as retaliation over a personal dispute arising from an extra-marital relationship that had turned sour. However, the Court was unconvinced. It held that the assertion that the informant was a “mature married woman” who consented to the relationship was a “specious argument” incapable of negating the grave criminality revealed during investigation.
“To now unilaterally blame it on the informant... since she was already a married woman, it was she who was on the wrong side of law, will be unacceptable,” the Court firmly stated.
From Consensual Relationship to Digital Harassment
The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Srivastava, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with serious cybercrime allegations. The FIR alleged that after the informant ended her relationship with the petitioner, he misused her personal data and private photos, creating fake email IDs and Instagram profiles to circulate obscene and defamatory content. The target of this alleged abuse was not just the informant, but also her professional circle—emails were sent to her employer at Amity University in an apparent attempt to cost her the job.
The petitioner refuted these claims, stating that the relationship was consensual and mutual — including joint vacations, financial transactions, and even shared use of digital accounts. He accused the informant of filing the complaint to defame him after their relationship turned hostile.
Grave Offences Require Custodial Interrogation
The High Court analyzed serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 308(2), 314, 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 351(2), 356(2)) and Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66C, 66D, 67, 67A), involving privacy breaches, identity theft, obscenity, and criminal intimidation.
The Court particularly relied on material collected during the investigation:
The petitioner’s mobile number was found to be linked with the creation of fake email IDs and Instagram profiles used to post obscene content.
Objectionable photographs were allegedly emailed to the Vice-Chancellor of Amity University even after the FIR had been filed.
An independent witness under Section 180 BNSS supported the allegations, including threats, demand of ₹25,00,000 and pressure to obtain divorce under threat of viral circulation of photos.
The Court found these facts constituted a strong prima facie case, necessitating custodial interrogation.
The ruling emphasized: “Implications of arming the respondents with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account... It would greatly harm the investigation and impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy.”
Relying on the precedents in State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu [(1997) 8 SCC 104], Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC 597], and State v. Anil Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC 187], the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail must not be granted routinely, especially in serious, organized offences involving complex cyber evidence and conspiracies.
“25 username changes”: Digital Footprint Tells Its Own Story
One critical finding disclosed during arguments was the response from Instagram, indicating that the username of the informant’s impersonated account was changed 25 times—strongly suggesting manipulative use to avoid detection. The Court observed that, even assuming joint access, this kind of behavior “compromised the dignity and privacy of the informant.”
Whatsapp chats presented in court revealed sexually explicit messages, abusive language, and even a demand for resignation from Amity University, all of which the Court found deeply disturbing.
Bail Rejected, Interim Protection Vacated
Dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, the Court held: “The petitioner herein has exploited vulnerability and dignity of the informant. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.”
The interim protection granted earlier on 13.10.2025 was vacated, and the application under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS was dismissed.
This judgment sends a strong message on the misuse of digital platforms to inflict reputational and psychological harm, particularly after the breakdown of personal relationships. The High Court’s ruling reaffirms that privacy, dignity, and digital integrity remain inviolable, irrespective of the nature or origin of a prior relationship.
Date of Decision: 21 January 2026
