-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
According to the Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre, the term "sexually explicit" in section 67A does not refer only to sexual acts, but also to videos depicting nudity.
As a result, the court denied a man accused of sending nude videos of a woman to others, including her husband, pre-arrest bail.
In 2022, the woman approached the Thane police and filed a complaint against the accused, who is a friend of her husband.
According to the complainant, she developed intimacy with the defendant, which led to their sexual relationship.
According to the female complainant, the relationship was consensual, and when the accused asked her to send naked videos of herself, she did so willingly. The complaint was initially hesitant, but she complied.
The complainant severed ties with the defendant after his wife and daughter confronted her with the video during a visit to his residence.
After three years, however, the accused began blackmailing the complainant with nude videos, and the complainant began meeting him again.
Following this, the accused distributed nude videos of the complainant to villagers and the complainant's husband.
The woman filed a complaint, and the suspect was arrested under section 67A of the IT Act.
The defendant petitioned the High Court for anticipatory bail.
The High Court denied bail and rejected the defendant's argument that a nude video alone cannot be considered sexually explicit.
In this regard, the court determined that the term sexually explicit as used in section 67A of the United States Code does not refer solely to sexual acts, but also to videos depicting naked people.
In addition to noting that the allegations against the defendant are serious, the court denied the defendant's request for anticipatory bail because the case requires a detention investigation.
D.D: 10th JUNE 2022
Esrar Nazrul Ahmad versus the State of Maharashtra
