Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has declined to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of misusing digital platforms to target a woman with whom he was allegedly in a consensual extra-marital relationship. The Court found prima facie material indicating that fake email and social media accounts were created using the accused’s mobile number and used to circulate defamatory messages and obscene photographs, including by sending such content to persons connected with the woman’s workplace and by approaching her relatives and acquaintances through a fake profile. While noting the existence of a relationship, the Bench held it could not be treated as a “friendship simpliciter” where one party exploits the other, and said the accused had no authority to compromise the woman’s dignity and privacy.

The matter arose from an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with allegations of cyber-related offences and acts affecting personal dignity and privacy. The accused apprehended arrest in a cyber police case registered for multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Also Read: Principal Civil Court Of Original Jurisdiction Alone Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate, Not Referral Courts Under Section 29A, A & C Act : Supreme Court

The prosecution case, as reflected from the complaint and investigation materials, alleged misuse of social media platforms, creation of fake email and social media accounts, circulation of objectionable and defamatory content, and acts intended to blackmail and coerce the informant. It was alleged that the accused sent objectionable photographs and messages to third parties, including workplace authorities of the informant, and created fake digital identities using his mobile number.

The defence contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual and personal in nature, that financial transactions were mutual, and that the allegations were motivated. The defence also relied upon electronic records such as chats, travel details, and financial documents to dispute the allegations.

The State and the informant opposed the plea, relying upon statements of independent witnesses, electronic evidence, and case diary materials indicating misuse of digital platforms, threats, and demands involving circulation of obscene material.

The Court observed that “the materials on record including the Whatsapp chat” indicated that the parties were in a relationship and had exchanged money. It recorded that “after that the petitioner… created a fake mail account… and sent mail containing irrelevant and defamatory messages and photographs of the informant… with an intention to blackmail her and also to defame her everywhere.”

The Court further noted that “fake Instagram account of the informant was also created by the petitioner… wherein, the obscene photos were uploaded and friend request was sent to her relatives, friends etc. without any consent of the informant.” It recorded that investigation revealed that “the mobile number of the petitioner has been used in creating the said account.”

Referring to witness statements, the Court recorded that “one independent witness… has stated that obscene photographs have been sent to him” and that “Rs.25,00,000/- has been demanded… and threatening was made that obscene photographs of the informant will be sent and uploaded on the social media.”

The Court observed that “the petitioner’s conduct transcended the boundaries of a mere friendship” and that “the relationship… cannot be termed as a ‘friendship simpliciter’.” It stated that “if a person is in friendship, it does not entitle one party to exploit the other’s vulnerability or dignity.”

Rejecting the defence argument based on the informant’s marital status, the Court stated that “assertions… that the informant, being a married woman, was mature and intelligent enough… cannot absolve the petitioner of the allegations.” It further recorded that “to now unilaterally blame it on the informant… will be unacceptable.”

On anticipatory bail principles, the Court recorded that “the power to grant anticipatory bail… is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly” and relied upon Supreme Court precedent cautioning against routine grant of pre-arrest bail where serious allegations and ongoing investigation exist.

Also Read: Abused Power Of His Post And Position: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Regular Bail Plea In ACB Khas Mahal Land Scam Under Prevention Of Corruption Act.

The Court stated that “I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. This application is dismissed. Interim order, granted by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025, stands vacated.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mrs. Bharti V. Kaushal, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Special Public Prosecutor
For the Informant: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate; Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Advocate; Ms. Nutan Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Srivastav @ Vijay Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:1551
Case Number: A.B.A. No. 5971 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi