Judge Raju Ingle noted Jha's contention that no offence was made out against him even if charge-sheet is read as it is against him. The judge further noted the contention that the only allegations against him is that, he followed the alleged Bullibai App and nothing else.

However, the prosecution highlighted that Jha was in contact with other co-accused as they shared the ideology with each other.

The prosecution contented that one of the accused created Bullibai App and other co-accused not only followed it, but also shared it on their Twitter account. Therefore they are also liable for prosecution, it was argued.

However, the court when enquired with the Investigating Officer (I.O) to show that Jha shared the Bullibai App in the entire charge-sheet, he could not show it.

"The only role, therefore, remained attributing the present applicant is that, he followed the Bullibai App. It is informed to the court that, very soon after launching the said App, the said App was removed. Now, there is no record to show applicant shared Bullibai App on his Twitter handle. So, admittedly, the role of the present applicant is that, he followed the Bullibai App and he was in contact with the co-accused," the judge noted.

The judge further noted that Jha followed Bullibai App and beyond this, there was no further role attributed by the prosecution against him. So far as, the allegation of the prosecution that Jha was in contact with the co-accused, does not ipso facto make him liable for the act of co-accused.

"On having gone through the connection in between the present applicant and the co-accused, there is no sharing anything in respect of the present crime. Their contact shows that, they are familiar to each other, but, there is nothing to see involvement of present applicant directly in creating the Bullibai App. May be the applicant has followed Bullibai App due to his familiarity with the coaccused and contact with them, but, in entire charge-sheet there is no further role of the present applicant which would show that, he either created said App or the help co-accused in creating it," Judge Ingle held.

Even there is no allegation that, he shared photographs of Muslim women with the main accused Niraj Bishnoi, who created the app.

"So, mere following the App will not constitute the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, considering these facts, I do not think charge can be framed against the present applicant. Hence, present applicant/accused is liable to be discharged," the court ordered.

The case pertains to several politically vocal Muslim women being put up for "auction" on a mobile application.

The case came to the fore after innumerable prominent Muslim women found themselves up for auction on the App hosted by GitHub. Many women found that their doctored images were put up on the App for "auction.

The FIR was registered against relevant handles and the developer of Bulli Bai for offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity on grounds of religion etc), 153B (imputations prejudicial to nationallyntegration), 295A (insulting religious beliefs), 354D (stalking), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 500 (criminal defamation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of Information Technology Act.

The Bulli Bai App is similar to the 'Sulli Deals' which also resulted in a controversy last year by offering 'sullis', a derogatory word trolls would use for Muslim women. GitHub was also the host for that App.