‘Digital Crimes Can Destroy Lives’: Allahabad HC denies bail to accused for circulating indecent photographs via WhatsApp

Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by the accused in jail since 09-01-2025 for offences under Sections 74, 352, 351(2), 64(1) Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 67A Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) a Single Judge Bench of Ajay Bhanot, J. refused to grant bail. The Court noted that the accused had allegedly circulated indecent photographs of the victim via WhatsApp. Some of the images had been recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) for examination, and the FSL report was awaited. Given the grave nature of the offence and the likelihood of the accused’s involvement, the Court held that no case for bail was made out at this stage.

The Court further observed that digital technology has significantly transformed the nature of criminal activity, especially in relation to offences involving privacy violations and cyber abuse. The circulation of indecent images of an individual on public platforms, particularly through social media, could have devastating and irreversible consequences on the victim’s life and dignity. Recognising this harsh social reality, the Court underscored the need to ensure that such offenders are brought to justice swiftly and that the trial is concluded in an expeditious manner.

The Court noted that the accused’s bail application had been rejected by the Trial Court on 23-04-2025.

The Court directed the District Judge to take weekly reports on the progress of the trial. The Deputy Director, FSL concerned, was instructed to ensure that the FSL report was produced before the Trial Court within a period of two months.

Without delving into the merits of the case, the Court dismissed the bail application. However, in the interest of justice and considering the nature of the offence, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to conclude the trial within an expeditious timeframe. While the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) does not stipulate a specific timeline for concluding a trial, the Court emphasised that the legislative intent of Section 309 CrPC. is clear in seeking the speedy disposal of criminal trials. In light of the facts of the case, the Trial Court was directed to make all efforts to conclude the trial, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Court further observed that the Trial Court must remain mindful of the rights of the accused and is under a legal obligation to adopt all necessary, expeditious, and coercive measures to secure the presence of witnesses. Any delay or obstruction by counsel or parties was to be discouraged, and in appropriate cases, exemplary costs should be imposed on those responsible for impeding the trial proceedings.

All witnesses and counsels were directed to cooperate with the trial process. The Trial Court was instructed to issue summons through the regular process under Section 62 CrPC, as well as by registered post in accordance with Section 69 CrPC, to expedite the proceedings. The Trial Court was also directed to take strict coercive measures against any witness who failed to appear during the proceedings, as per the law.

Additionally, the police authorities were directed to promptly execute any warrants or coercive measures issued by the Trial Court to ensure the attendance of witnesses. The Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, was directed to file an affidavit before the Trial Court on the date fixed, providing the status of execution of warrants and service of summons as directed by the court.

The Court expressed serious concern over delays in trials resulting from the failure of police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive measures to secure the appearance of witnesses, despite a clear statutory mandate. The Court noted that this issue had previously arisen for consideration in Bhanwar Singh v. State of U.P.¹ and Jitendra v. State of U.P.² In both cases, the Court had issued specific directions to police authorities regarding their duty to promptly serve summons and execute coercive processes to ensure the presence of witnesses. In compliance with these directions, the Director General of Police, Government of U.P., and the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., had issued relevant orders and nominated the Senior Superintendents of Police of the districts as nodal officials for their implementation.

The Court further directed the counsels and the Trial Court to strictly adhere to the directions issued in Noor Alam vs. State of U.P.³ In the event of any strike during the course of the trial, the Trial Court was instructed to ensure full compliance with the guidelines laid down in Noor Alam (supra) to avoid delay.

In the event that police authorities failed to comply with the directions issued in Bhanwar Singh (supra) and Jitendra (supra), or failed to implement the instructions issued by the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary regarding service of summons and execution of coercive measures, the Trial Court was directed to call upon the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned to file an affidavit in that regard.

The trial court was also placed under a legal obligation to examine whether the judgments in Bhanwar Singh (Supra)and Jitendra (Supra), as well as the administrative directions issued in compliance thereof, had been duly implemented. Based on its findings, the court was empowered to take appropriate legal action, including summoning concerned officials in person.

Additionally, the Court directed that in cases where any accused person enlarged on bail failed to cooperate with the trial or adopted dilatory tactics, the Trial Court must record such conduct and cancel the bail without referring the matter to the High Court.

To ensure ongoing oversight, the trial judge was instructed to submit a fortnightly report on the progress of the trial and the steps taken to comply with the present order to the District Judge. A copy of this order was also directed to be communicated to the trial judge through the District Judge, Prayagraj, as well as to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, by the Registrar (Compliance) via e-mail.

[Ramdev v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 4084, decided on 02-06-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Mishra,Shailendra Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :– G.A.

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE