Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Law Student, Holding That Offensive Social Media Posts Targeting Complainant, Judge, or Police May Warrant Rejection of Pre-Arrest Relief
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna denied anticipatory bail to a law student accused of persistent harassment, intimidation, and defamation of a woman and her daughter through physical acts and social media misuse. The Court observed that anticipatory bail may justifiably be refused where an accused circulates the complainant’s photographs online using indecent language and even targets the judge or investigating officers through objectionable posts. Citing the accused’s continued use of obscene language and late-night calls to the complainant, the Court held that his conduct and the gravity of the offences made him undeserving of pre-arrest protection.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by a woman at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Delhi, alleging that the accused, a law student, had engaged in repeated acts of harassment, intimidation, and defamation targeting her and her daughter. The complainant stated that over several months, the accused used social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube, and Truecaller to circulate obscene, vulgar, and defamatory content using her daughter’s name, photographs, and contact details without consent. It was alleged that the accused made threatening and indecent calls and messages at irregular hours, demanded money and sexual favours, and repeatedly visited their residence, damaging property and attempting forceful entry.
The complaint further stated that on multiple occasions the accused vandalised the complainant’s scooter and used abusive language outside her home. A video was also allegedly uploaded on Facebook accompanied by threats. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under Sections 77, 87, 324(1), 351, and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to provisions under the Indian Penal Code relating to offences such as sexual harassment, extortion, and criminal intimidation.
The accused sought anticipatory bail, asserting that the complaint was false and lodged in retaliation to judicial proceedings pending between the parties, including applications filed by him under Sections 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 195A of the Indian Penal Code. He alleged that the complainant had a history of filing false cases against him and others, and that earlier complaints of a similar nature had ended in acquittal or cancellation. He contended that he was cooperating with the investigation, had clean antecedents, and that arrest would cause irreparable harm to his education and career.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, asserting that the accused had continued to harass the complainant and her daughter even after the registration of the FIR, had posted objectionable material online, and had sent threatening messages to the investigating officer. The complainant supported this position, maintaining that the accused’s actions were deliberate and continuous, warranting custodial interrogation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after reviewing the case record, noted that there was “a long-standing history of personal enmity and multiple litigations between the complainant and the applicant.” The Court recorded that “the likelihood of the present FIR being a counterblast to the aforesaid proceedings cannot be ruled out,” but also remarked that “the conduct of the applicant” could not be ignored in assessing his plea for relief.
The judgment stated, “The previous acquittals do not create an automatic entitlement to bail in the present proceedings, which involve distinct allegations and a continuing course of conduct.” The Court observed that the accusations were not isolated but demonstrated a “troublesome conduct of the applicant spanning over several months, involving physical intimidation and digital harassment.”
The Bench noted that the applicant continued to contact and threaten the complainant and her daughter even after registration of the FIR. It was recorded that he used “obscene and derogatory language” and made “calls at odd hours.” The Court further observed, “He has visited the house of the complainant on more than one occasion, breaking the windows and vandalising her scooter. Moreover, he has also threatened the investigating officer by sending him voice messages regularly.”
The Court took note of the petitioner’s social media activity, recording that he had been “posting photographs of the complainant on social media platforms including Facebook and YouTube using inappropriate language” and had “not even spared the judicial officer as well as the investigating agency, in his social media posts.” The Court concluded that such conduct demonstrated that the applicant was unlikely to refrain from harassment if granted bail.
Justice Krishna referred to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, noting that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised cautiously. The order quoted, “Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It has been observed that it cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
In considering the allegations and the applicant’s behaviour, the Court stated, “The seriousness of the accusations, the possibility of the applicant influencing or threatening the complainant, his conduct throughout the proceedings, weigh heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail.”
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna recorded, “Such conduct of the applicant makes it unlikely that he would not misuse the anticipatory bail to continue harassing the complainant and her daughter.” The order determined that the offences under Sections 77, 87, 324(1), 351, and 308(2) of the BNS were serious in nature and merited a cautious approach.
“The seriousness of the accusations, the possibility of the applicant influencing or threatening the complainant, his conduct throughout the proceedings, weigh heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail. This Court finds no ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.”
“The observations made herein are not an expression on the merits of the case.” With this, the Court disposed of the bail application along with all pending applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rijul Tyagi, Mr. Vijay Kinger, Mr. Ashwani Gehlot, Ms. Roopa Nagpal, Dr. Varnit Sharma, and Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State; Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Mr. Neeraj Mishra, Mr. Manoviraj Singh, and Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocates.
Case Title: Vivek Deep v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9324
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3163/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
