When a 16-year-old allegedly shared an intimate video with the young man she trusted in a moment of emotional vulnerability, little did she know that it would return to haunt her in the form of repeated public humiliation on social media.
Taking note of the allegations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to the 21-year-old accused, observing that he had “betrayed the trust of the minor girl”, “played with her emotions” and threatened her. The court also held that no case was made out for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, particularly when the investigation was at a nascent stage.
Justice Aaradhna Sawhney was hearing a petition filed by the accused in a case registered at Phillaur police station in Jalandhar district under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Information Technology Act.
The court was told that the complainant, an electrician, came to know from neighbours that nude videos of his teenage daughter had been circulated on social media. When questioned, the girl disclosed that the petitioner had been threatening to make the videos viral. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had defamed the family by making offensive and nude videos of the victim viral on social media, including Instagram.
The court was further informed that the complainant, during the investigation, 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 taken into police possession after being repaired, as it had earlier been broken by her father in anger. The Cyber Cell at Jalandhar could not retrieve the data as it had either been deleted or reformatted. The phone was subsequently sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mohali, whose report is still awaited.
Seeking anticipatory bail, counsel for the petitioner argued that the young man had been falsely implicated because the complainant wanted to settle scores with him and his family. It was submitted that the petitioner and the girl were emotionally attached, remained in regular contact and exchanged letters expressing their desire to live together. The defence further claimed that a village panchayat had attempted to resolve the issue.
“It was agreed that the elders would counsel the young kids and instil a sense of responsibility in them. It was further agreed that neither victim nor petitioner would remain in touch with each other. However, despite giving assurances, complainant’s daughter continued her relationship with petitioner, who naturally reciprocated,” the court was told.
The petitioner also questioned the prosecution version by pointing to a three-day delay in the registration of the FIR. It was argued that there was, as yet, no scientific or technical evidence to establish that he had uploaded the videos, especially when the FSL report was still awaited. The defence further contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the petitioner was willing to join the investigation.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the petitioner had played havoc with the emotions of the complainant’s daughter. He exploited her emotionally and persuaded her to become physically intimate with him. According to the prosecution, the girl was so taken in by the petitioner’s charms that she committed the folly of sending him the objectionable videos.
Referring to the prosecution’s stand, the court noted: “It is not the case of the prosecution that the victim was maintaining friendship with several other persons/boys of the area, who might also have had access to those videos. She was only emotionally attached to the petitioner and in one such weak intimate moment, acted totally irresponsibly and herself sent these videos.”
Holding that the allegations disclosed a serious breach of trust, 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 Bench added that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and the likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the probe and influencing prosecution witnesses could not be ruled out if the relief sought was granted. “In the light of seriousness and gravity of allegations levelled, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out,” Justice Sawhney concluded.
.jpg?width=1200&auto=webp&trim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0)
