Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on December 3, emphasized the growing misuse of social media and technology to exploit and intimidate vulnerable individuals, particularly minors. The court rejected the accused's anticipatory bail application, noting that pre-arrest bail would establish an unsuitable precedent and compromise societal efforts to protect children from such acts.

The bench of Justice Amit Mahajan highlighted that there is an “increasing misuse of social media and technology to exploit and intimidate vulnerable individuals, particularly minors”. 

An FIR was filed based on a complaint by a 15-year-old girl studying in Class 11 alleging she was subjected to sexual harassment and exploitation by the accused. Per the complaint, in November of 2022, the accused reached out to the minor girl and began following her on her way to school. 

She refused but the accused was persistent and reached out to her via Instagram, claiming that he sought a ‘normal friendship’. Despite her refusal to communicate, the accused sent the victim a photograph where she was seen nude and threatened to make it viral unless she complied with his demands. Fearing public humiliation, the victim was coerced into communicating with the accused through Instagram video calls.

Advocate Kashif Athar, for the accused, claimed that his client was falsely accused. It was asserted that he left for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in early September 2024 and returned voluntarily upon receiving information about this FIR. 

Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar, for the State, asserted that custodial interrogation is essential to recover the electronic devices allegedly used to ascertain the extent of the offenses, and trace the potential circulation of explicit material. 

The court noted that the investigation has remained in its initial stages. The factors influencing the grant of pre-arrest bail significantly differed from those considered during the adjudication of an application for regular bail. The court highlighted that in the latter scenario, the accused was already in custody, and substantial investigative work had been conducted by the investigating agency. 

Additionally, the court reiterated the well-established principle of law that the authority to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was exceptional and had to be exercised with caution. The court noted that custodial interrogation was inherently more effective in eliciting information compared to questioning an accused who was shielded by a favorable order under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

“The allegations against the applicant are of a grave and serious nature, involving the exploitation and sexual abuse of a minor girl. The applicant is accused of coercing the victim into engaging in sexually explicit acts over video calls, recording the same without her consent, and using these recordings to blackmail her repeatedly”, the court noted. 

The court noted that this case highlighted the growing misuse of social media and technology to exploit and intimidate vulnerable individuals, particularly minors. Based on the allegations and the examination of evidence, the court determined that granting pre-arrest bail would set an unsuitable precedent and undermine societal efforts to protect children from such egregious acts.

The court observed that the accused’s actions reflected a troubling trend of using the anonymity and wide reach of social media platforms to commit sexual crimes against minors. The court recognized the broader societal implications of these offenses and emphasized the necessity of delivering a strong message against the misuse of technology.

Given the involvement of electronic devices and digital evidence, the Investigating Agency faced a challenging task. The court noted that the agency should be allowed adequate scope to conduct a thorough investigation without interference from an order granting pre-arrest bail.

While the provision of pre-arrest bail served as a legal safeguard to protect individuals from potential misuse of arrest powers, the court stressed the importance of balancing an individual's right to liberty with the demands of justice. Although the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty remained fundamental, they needed to be weighed against the severity of the offense, its societal impact, and the necessity of an unhindered investigation.

Upon reviewing the case materials, the court found no indication that the investigation aimed to harm or humiliate the accused or that he was falsely implicated. Granting pre-arrest bail, in this case, would have hindered the progress of the investigation. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application.

Case Title: Saiful Khan v State (2024:DHC:9378)