No Instagram, Facebook, social media for a year: Court sets unusual bail conditions for cyber ‘stalker’

“The petitioner is restrained from using all kind of social media platform like Instagram, Facebook, Snap Chat, Thread, Share Chat etc. for a period of one year and in case it is found that he is using any of the social media platform during said period of one year either in his name or in any fictitious name using his mobile/E-mail ID or a fictitious E-mail ID then the bail order shall be recalled,” the court said on May 21.

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain of the Rajasthan High Court banned the accused from using social media for one year. (File Image)

To ensure safety

• Having considered the nature of the allegation, it is appropriate to put certain conditions including social media upon the petitioner, to ensure the safety and well-being of the victim.
• The petitioner shall not contact directly or indirectly with the victim or the family of the victim, and he will not forward or send any message on any of the communication medium may it Instagram, Facebook messenger or Snap Chat, WhatsApp, etc.
• The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.
• The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.
• The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the trial court on the date fixed by the trial court or as and when asked to appear before the trial court.
• In case of any violation of the conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be cancelled.

Allegations of sexual harassment, cyber stalking

According to court records, the complaint was lodged on February 22 by the father of the minor girl, alleging that the accused had sexually harassed and stalked the victim between February 1 and February 20.

The FIR alleged repeated cyber harassment through social media and inappropriate communication.

The accused was arrested on February 24, and police later filed a chargesheet against him under provisions of the BNS and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

During the hearing, counsel for the accused argued that the case was based primarily on oral allegations and that no substantial material had been produced to support the charges mentioned in the FIR.

The defence also told the court that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet had already been filed, and the accused was no longer required for custodial interrogation.

The petitioner further claimed he had been falsely implicated and assured the court that he would cooperate with the trial proceedings and would not repeat any offence.

‘Psychologically endangered’: Complainant opposes bail

Opposing the bail plea, advocate Mukul Krishna Vyas, counsel for the complainant and Lalit Kishor Sen, the public prosecutor, argued that the accused’s conduct had severely affected the victim’s mental peace.

The complainant’s lawyer submitted before the court that the accused, “with sexual intent,” had been harassing the victim in a manner that made it difficult for her to live normally and had “psychologically endangered” her life.

The court also took note of the fact that another criminal case under the BNS and Arms Act was already pending against the accused, though the defence pointed out that there were no other major criminal antecedents against him.

Why high court granted bail

Despite the serious allegations, the high court observed that the accused had already spent a considerable period in custody and that the trial was likely to take time to conclude.

“Looking to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, this court deems it appropriate to grant bail,” the order stated.

The court directed the release of the accused on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with two sureties of the same amount.

Growing judicial concern over online harassment

The order comes at a time when courts across India are increasingly grappling with cases involving cyber stalking through social media online intimidation and digital harassment, particularly involving minors and women.

The decision reflects a growing judicial trend where courts are tailoring bail conditions to the nature of the alleged offence, especially in cases involving misuse of social media.

The ruling is also likely to spark debate on whether temporary digital restrictions including ban on using social media can become a more common condition in cases involving cyber harassment and stalking allegations.