‘Relationship no license to exploit’: Jharkhand High Court denies bail to man for leaking private photos of woman

“Unilaterally blaming it on the informant, that since she was already a married woman, it was she who was on the wrong side of the law, will be unacceptable,” the court observed.

The order added that if a person is in a friendship, it does not entitle one party to exploit the other’s vulnerability or dignity.

Findings

• The petitioner’s conduct transcended the boundaries of a mere friendship.
• The relationship between the informant and petitioner cannot be termed as a “friendship simpliciter” wherein financial assistance was extended by one friend to another.
• The petitioner has exploited the relationship under the guise of a social media account.
• Being a married woman, was mature and intelligent enough to understand the significance and consequences of her action, is a specious argument that cannot absolve the petitioner of the allegations levelled against him.
• Initially, both of them had become friends, and the informant had never hidden from him that she was married, and he himself had entered intoa friendship and relationship with her, sexual or otherwise, and had financially helped her.
• In the investigation, it has been revealed that the mobile phone of the petitioner was being used to create social media accounts.
• The allegation is made against the petitioner in the present case of threatening the informant to make the video viral on social media. The WhatsApp chat brought to record is very disturbing.
• The petitioner has exploited the vulnerability and dignity of the woman.

Background

• The petitioner, a 42-year-old resident of Delhi, sought protection from arrest in connection with a case registered under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 76 (assault or use of criminal force to women with intent to disrobe), 77 (voyeurism), 78 (stalking), 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of woman), 314 (dishonest misappropriation of property), and other related provisions of the BNS and under Sections 66C, 66D, 67, and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with identity theft, cheating by personation, and the publication of absence material.
• Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged.
• She further argued that the FIR has been filed only to put the petitioner under pressure to compel him to bow down to the unreasonable demands of the informant.
• She next submitted that the informant was in an extra-marital consensual relationship with the petitioner since past three years and the petitioner moved to Delhi from Ranchi for his work, which was not like by the informant.
• She argued that due to some personal grudges and grievances against the petitioner, the informant in connivance with her husband and family members has tried to implead the petitioner and his family members in a false case only to feed their ego.
• Counsel appearing for the state opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that in the investigation, many things have revealed which are against the petitioner.
• He further submitted that even after registration of the FIR, the petitioner presented a bad image of the informant by sending an objectionable photograph to the mobile number of the employees, where the informant further joined her work.
• He further submitted that there is no doubt that the petitioner and informant, both were in an extra-marital affair; however, the petitioner has violated the right of privacy of the informant.