Supreme Court Clubs FIRs Against Woman Accused Of Sending Bomb Threats To Frame Man Who Rejected Marriage Proposal

The Supreme Court today allowed clubbing of the FIRs registered against a Chennai techie over the alleged sending of bomb threat emails across multiple states, allegedly to frame a man who refused to marry her.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat (for petitioner).

During the submissions, Kamat urged that the emails continued to be sent from Joshilda's email account even after her arrest. "That's artificial intelligence (AI) for you", responded Justice Mehta.

The senior counsel further informed that as on date, there are 23 FIRs against the petitioner (6 in Gujarat, 1 in Tamil Nadu, 12 in Karnataka, 2 in Telangana and 2 others). It was contended that the bail conditions require her to travel to the police stations in these different states every week.

Initially, Justice Nath expressed non-inclination to grant relief, noting that the petitioner could request the trial courts to permit virtual appearance. "She's a dangerous lady...High Courts are vacated, stadium is vacated...today, just now, if there is a threat on email by your client to the Registrar General/Secretary General of this Court...what will happen? There will be a stampede", the judge observed.

In response, Kamat urged that the petitioner was under mental stress . Ultimately, the petition was allowed and the FIRs clubbed. The cases have been transferred to the State of Karnataka (where most FIRs were registered).

To recap, the petitioner, a 29-year-old robotics engineer in Chennai, was booked for sending bomb threat emails to different states, apparently out of revenge on a man she could not marry.

As per reports, she used fake email IDs, VPNs, and the dark web to mask her identity and location. Some of the fake email IDs created were in the name of the man she wanted to marry.

Apart from Gujarat, threatening emails were stated to have been sent to Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Bihar, Telangana, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana.

Case Title: R Versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SARKHEJ POLICE STATION, AHEMADABAD, GUJARAT AND ORS., Diary No. 51497-2025