Taking Photographs Of A Woman Doesn't Satisfy Definition Of Stalking U/S 78 Of BNS: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to an industrialist, who was accused of allegedly taking photographs of the wife of a regional officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board in an attempt to intimidate him.The Court reiterated that Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with stalking and punishes a person who follows a woman and contacts her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or other form of electronic communication. Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, the allegations in the complaint do not show that the petitioner had followed the informant's wife and contacted her to foster personal interaction. The only allegation is that the petitioner had taken the photographs of the informant's wife, Prima facie, these allegations do not satisfy the definition of stalking,”Background Facts: An FIR was registered against the petitioner, an industrialist under Sections 221 (obstructing public servant), 224 (threat of injury to public servant), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 78 (stalking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The informant, who was a regional officer in Himachal Pradesh, State Pollution Control Board, submitted that the petitioner allegedly followed him and also tried to hit his car as he had taken action against the petitioner for violations of environmental law. The informant further submitted that he tried to intimidate him and also made videos of his wife and even took photographs, trying to compel the informant to grant him an undue favour. The petitioner contended that the informant, who was a regional officer in Himachal Pradesh, State Pollution Control Board had demanded bribes. He alleged that the FIR filed by the informant was a counterblast as the petitioner had a complaint against him. Case Name: Krishan Kumar Kasana V/s State of H.P. & another Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1257 of 2025Date of Decision: 06.08.2025For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Karan Sharma, AdvocateFor the Respondent: Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate GeneralFor the Informant: Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, AdvocateClick Here To Read/Download Order

Taking Photographs Of A Woman Doesn't Satisfy Definition Of Stalking U/S 78 Of BNS: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags