Delhi HC denies anticipatory bail to man accused of stalking woman, daughter

The FIR, filed on a complaint by the mother, alleged that the man had been using her daughter’s name, photographs and contact details from social media platforms

New Delhi

The Delhi Police, represented by additional public prosecutor Utkarsh, opposed the petition, asserting that the man’s custodial interrogation was required since the probe was at an initial stage. (HT Archive)

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of misusing information about a woman obtained from social media to post obscene images and stalk her and her mother, observing that such offences were grave in nature.

A bench of justice Neena Bansal Krishna issued the verdict on Thursday while dealing with the man’s plea seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR lodged against him on charges of stalking and mischief, among others.

The FIR, filed on a complaint by the mother, alleged that the man had been using her daughter’s name, photographs and contact details from social media platforms, including Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube, True Caller, to circulate and post obscene content without their consent.

It further stated that he repeatedly called the complainant at odd hours, and these communications included lewd remarks, sexual insinuations, visits to her residence multiple times, damaging a window of her house, and vandalising her scooter. The FIR added that the man had repeatedly demonstrated detailed knowledge of their daily routine, including where they had been and at what time.

The Delhi Police, represented by additional public prosecutor Utkarsh, opposed the petition, asserting that the man’s custodial interrogation was required since the probe was at an initial stage.

In her 13-page judgment on October 13, justice Krishna dismissed the petition, noting that even after the FIR, the man continued posting obscene content, harassing the complainant and her daughter, and threatening the investigating officer. The court observed that such conduct indicated the man was unlikely to refrain from misusing anticipatory bail or from continuing to harass the complainant.

“Such conduct of the applicant makes it unlikely that he would not misuse the anticipatory bail to continue harassing the complainant and her daughter. The nature of offences under sections 77, 87, 324, 351 and 308 BNS are serious in nature,” the court maintained.