The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a 21-year-old man accused of leaking an intimate video of a 16-year-old girl on social media, stating that he "betrayed the trust of the minor girl" and "played with her emotions." Justice Aaradhna Sawhney, hearing the bail petition, emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the nascent stage of the investigation.
Case Background
The case was registered at Phillaur police station in Jalandhar district under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Information Technology Act. The complainant, the victim's father and an electrician, learned from neighbors that nude videos of his daughter were circulating on social media. Upon questioning, the girl revealed that the petitioner had been threatening to make the videos viral. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had defamed the family by sharing offensive and nude videos on platforms like Instagram.
Investigation Details
During the investigation, the complainant handed over a pen drive containing the videos. The victim's mobile phone, from which the videos were allegedly recorded and sent to the petitioner, was also seized after being repaired—it had been broken by her father in anger. The Cyber Cell in Jalandhar could not retrieve the data as it had been deleted or reformatted, so the phone was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Mohali. The FSL report is still pending.
Defense Arguments
The petitioner's counsel argued that the young man was falsely implicated due to a personal vendetta. They claimed the petitioner and the victim were emotionally attached, in regular contact, and had exchanged letters expressing a desire to live together. A village panchayat had attempted to resolve the issue, agreeing that elders would counsel the youngsters and that both would cease contact. However, the defense alleged that the victim continued the relationship, and the petitioner reciprocated. The defense also pointed to a three-day delay in filing the FIR and the lack of scientific evidence linking the petitioner to the upload, especially since the FSL report was awaited. They contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the petitioner was willing to cooperate.
Prosecution's Stand
The state opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner exploited the victim emotionally, persuaded her to become physically intimate, and that she, in a moment of weakness, sent him the objectionable videos. The court noted that the prosecution did not claim the victim was friends with other boys who might have accessed the videos; she was solely attached to the petitioner.
Court's Observation
Justice Sawhney observed, "Thus, in view of the role played by the petitioner, who betrayed the trust of the minor girl and played with her emotions, as also threatened her, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling him for the grant of this extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail." The court added that the investigation was at a nascent stage and granting bail could lead to interference with the probe and influencing witnesses. Concluding, Justice Sawhney stated, "In the light of seriousness and gravity of allegations levelled, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out."
