Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the accused , a law student, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to seek anticipatory bail in FIR filed for offences under Sections 77, 87, 324(1), 351 and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., noted that the accused 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.
Accordingly, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a law student, noting that he had been using obscene and derogatory language against the complainant and had been calling her at odd hours. The Court further observed that such conduct of the accused clearly indicated that, if granted anticipatory bail, he would misuse the liberty to continue harassing the complainant and her daughter.
Background
In the present case, a complaint was received against the accused alleging that over the past several months, he engaged in a persistent and disturbing pattern of behavior causing immense physical, mental and reputational harm to the complainant, and her daughter. It was alleged that he willfully misused social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube and True Caller to fabricate, manipulate and widely circulate obscene, defamatory, and vulgar content using the name, photographs and contact details of the complainant’s daughter without their consent.
It was further alleged that the accused made unsolicited, threatening, and vulgar calls and messages at odd hours to the complainant’s mobile number. These communications contained lewd remarks, sexual insinuations, and explicit threats to defame, harm, and coerce the complainant and her daughter unless she complied with his unlawful and immoral demands. He also demonstrated detailed knowledge of their daily routine and activities, indicating close surveillance.
One day, the accused allegedly forcibly visited the complainant’s residence, vandalised the entrance gate, and damaged her scooter. Again, on another day, he allegedly came to her house along with others, banged aggressively on the door, damaged the boundary wall, and attempted to enter forcibly, thereby endangering the family’s safety. The complainant further stated that the accused had issued repeated threats to continue defaming and harming them unless his monetary and immoral demands were fulfilled. Despite blocking his number, he continued to contact her from different phone numbers, making illegal and obscene demands and seeking sexual favours from her and her daughter.
The accused allegedly uploaded a video on Facebook and later visited the complainant’s house carrying a wooden stick, using abusive language regarding her and her daughter. On receiving information from a neighbour, the complainant called the police, but the accused fled the scene. Subsequently, he again threatened her over the phone later that night. It was also alleged that the accused coerced the complainant into physical relations, and the recordings and video clips of such acts were circulated online through his YouTube channel and Facebook account.
Based on these allegations, the present FIR was registered, and investigation was taken up.
The accused had sought bail on the grounds that the present FIR was filed to pressure him into settling pending applications under Section 340 CrPC before the Sessions Court and the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court concerning offences under Sections 193, 194, 195, 199, 200, and 211 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). His anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge and transit bail application before the Sessions Judge were both dismissed.
He further contended that the complainant habitually filed false complaints against her husband and the accused, like FIR under Sections 328, 354A, 376, 377, 506 of the IPC filed before the present FIR in which he was granted anticipatory bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court which noted that the complainant, being married and educated, could not have been misled by a false promise of marriage.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the accused had filed applications under Section 340 of the CrPC and Section 195A of the IPC against the complainant which were both pending. Considering the same, the Court opined that the likelihood of the present FIR to be a retaliation for the aforesaid proceedings could not be ruled out. The Court highlighted that the grant of bail depended on the facts and circumstances of each case, applied with caution, especially in serious offences where premature protection could hamper investigation or enable evidence of tampering.
The Court stated that the previous acquittals of the accused did not create an automatic entitlement to bail in the present proceedings, which involved distinct allegations and a continuing course of conduct. The allegations in the present were not merely a single isolated incident but revealed the troublesome conduct for over several months, involving physical intimidation and digital harassment.
The Court noted that the accused continued to call and message the complainant’s daughter and threatened them through SMS and late-night calls, even after the present FIR was lodged. Even otherwise, he had visited her house on more than one occasion, broken the windows and vandalised her scooty. Moreover, he also threatened the Investigating Officer by sending him voice messages regularly. Further, the accused had not even spared the judicial officer as well as the investigating agency in his social media posts.
The Court observed that such conduct made it unlikely that he would not misuse the anticipatory bail to continue harassing the complainant and her daughter. The Court, thus, dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
[Vivek Deep v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. No. 3163 of 2025, decided on 13-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rijul Tyagi, Vijay Kinger, Ashwani Gehlot, Roopa Nagpal, Dr. Varnit Sharma and Hemant Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Utkarsh, APP for the State, Samarth Krishan Luthra, Neeraj Mishra, Manoviraj Singh and Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
