Relationship No License To Exploit Partner's Dignity: Jharkhand HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Sending Obscene Content To Employer
The Jharkhand High Court has rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a man accused of creating fake email and social media accounts to circulate defamatory and obscene content of a woman with whom he was allegedly in a consensual extra-marital relationship.
The Court observed that even if a relationship exists, it cannot be termed as a "friendship simpliciter" if one party exploits the other, holding that the petitioner had no authority to compromise the dignity and privacy of the informant.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025, registered for offences under Sections 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 314, 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 356(2), 351(2), 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66C, 66D, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner and the informant met in October 2021 at Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess and Training, Lalpur, Ranchi, where the petitioner was working as a Center Account Head (Accountant). Over time, the two developed a close relationship and admitted to developing a close bond.
The petitioner argued that he was innocent and that the FIR had been lodged with an ulterior motive to harass him. He flagged what he termed as an "abnormal delay" in lodging the FIR and contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual and extra-marital in nature for nearly three years.
According to him, the criminal proceedings were initiated due to personal grievances and the informant, in connivance with her husband, tried to implead him to "feed their ego".
Opposing the bail plea, the State submitted that the petitioner had misused the informant's identity on social media platforms. It was further argued that even after registration of the FIR, the petitioner continued to circulate objectionable photographs of the informant, including sending such material to the Vice-Chancellor of Amity University, where the informant had subsequently joined employment, with the intent to malign her reputation and disrupt her career.
The State further relied on the statement of an independent witness recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, who stated that the petitioner demanded Rs. 25,00,000/- or for the informant to divorce her husband, threatening to circulate obscene photographs otherwise.
The High Court considered that the FIR, lodged on 30 November 2024, alleged that the petitioner created a fake email account in the name “Siddharthloveu@gmail.com” and sent defamatory messages and photographs of the informant to the Vice-Chancellor and other employees of Amity University with the intention of blackmailing and defaming her, thereby jeopardising her employment.
It was further noted that a fake Instagram account was created in the informant's name, through which obscene photographs were uploaded and friend requests were sent to her relatives and acquaintances without her consent. The case diary recorded that the mobile number used to create the fake accounts belonged to the petitioner.
After examining the materials on record, the Court noted that the petitioner and the informant were indeed in a relationship and had exchanged money on several occasions. Justice Dwivedi observed that the petitioner's conduct went far beyond the confines of a mere friendship, and observed:
"Assertions to the effect that the informant, being a married woman, was mature and intelligent enough to understand the significance and consequences of her action, is a specious argument that cannot absolve the petitioner of the allegations levelled against him. Admittedly, initially both of them had become friends, and the informant had never hidden from him that she was married and he himself had entered into friendship and relationship with her, sexual or otherwise, and had financially helped her. To now unilaterally blame it on the informant that since she was already a married woman, it was she who was on the wrong side of law, will be unacceptable".
The Court further noted that the Petitioner had "no authority to compromise the dignity and privacy of the informant".
In view of the material collected during the investigation and the nature of the allegations, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that no case for pre-arrest protection was made out.
Title: Vijay Kumar Srivastav v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Case Number: A.B.A. No. 5971 of 2025
Appearance: Mrs. Bharti V. Kaushal appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari appeared for the State. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Ms. Amrita Banerjee, and Ms. Nutan Singh appeared for the Informant.