The Karnataka High Court rejected bail pleas of four accused persons for allegedly posting defamatory, obscene and intimidating social media remarks against Vijayalakshmi, wife of actor Darshan. Justice S Rachaiah observed that online platforms cannot become tools for harassment, intimidation or character assassination.
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the bail applications filed by four individuals accused of posting defamatory, obscene and intimidating remarks on social media platforms against Vijayalakshmi, the wife of actor Darshan.
Justice S Rachaiah dismissed separate bail petitions filed by the accused in an order passed on May 29, holding that social media platforms cannot be used as tools for harassment, intimidation or attacks on an individual’s dignity.
The case involved allegations that the accused persons misused social media accounts to post offensive and derogatory comments targeting the complainant.
While refusing bail, the Court observed:
“Social media platforms cannot be permitted to become instruments of harassment and character assassination.”
The proceedings arose from allegations that multiple individuals had uploaded objectionable comments on social media targeting Vijayalakshmi. The police investigation alleged that the accused used different social media accounts to publish content that was not merely critical but allegedly crossed the limits of acceptable speech by becoming abusive, threatening and defamatory.
One of the accused, Chandrashekar B, was alleged to have operated an Instagram account under the name ‘Chandra Shekhar’ and posted comments that amounted to harassment and intimidation.
The High Court examined the nature of the alleged statements and noted that the comments contained vulgar references relating to sexual assault, which, according to the Court, reflected a serious concern regarding the manner in which women are targeted online.
Justice Rachaiah observed:
“The vulgar language used against the complainant relating to sexual assault. The manner in which, the petitioner utilized the public platform to make derogatory comments would show his mentality towards the community of the women at large…”
The Court held that such conduct required serious consideration while deciding whether the accused should be granted bail.
During the hearing, the Court also discussed the balance between freedom of speech and the protection of individual dignity. The Bench acknowledged that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, the Court clarified that the right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
The Court stated:
“Exceeding such restrictions or invading the personal liberty of another person, certainly would be an offence and it would be dealt with in accordance with law.”
Justice Rachaiah emphasised that constitutional freedoms cannot be used as a justification for making abusive, threatening or defamatory statements against others.
The High Court further highlighted the growing responsibility of digital platforms in preventing misuse of their services. It observed that social media platforms are intended to encourage communication, exchange of ideas and public interaction, but they are sometimes misused by individuals who cross the limits of lawful expression. The Court stated that false, baseless, frivolous and intimidating content should be controlled through proper regulation by the platforms themselves.
The Court remarked:
“Whenever interference is required, the Courts without hesitation, will step into safeguarding the rights and interests of individuals or the public, guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”
The judgment stressed that protection of personal dignity and safety remains an important constitutional obligation.
The Court also considered the bail application of Nithin GB, who was allegedly operating an Instagram account named ‘nithin_gb_official’. While rejecting his plea, the Court noted that social media is primarily meant for constructive communication and sharing of opinions, but misuse by individuals can cause serious harm to others. The Bench observed that certain users exploit online platforms by crossing legitimate boundaries of free speech and engaging in conduct that affects the rights of other citizens.
Another accused, Prashanth Kareepa Talavar, was alleged to have used an Instagram account named ‘halakat_randimunde’. The Court noted that he had allegedly posted vulgar comments on December 21, 2025, when Vijayalakshmi was participating in promotional activities related to the Kannada film The Devil. Justice Rachaiah described the alleged remarks as “ridiculous and unpardonable” and observed that the manner in which the complainant was addressed reflected the accused’s attitude towards women. The Court found that such conduct could not be ignored while considering the request for bail.
The fourth accused, Ningaraj Gulappa, was alleged to have operated a Facebook account under the name “Prince Chinna”. The Court noted that the accused had allegedly made derogatory comments that directly affected the complainant’s dignity and peaceful life. It was also recorded that the accused’s mobile phone had been seized during the investigation and that preliminary material indicated his alleged involvement in the offence.
The High Court reiterated that constitutional courts have a duty to protect individuals from violations of their rights. Justice Rachaiah observed that courts cannot remain passive when fundamental rights, dignity and personal liberty are threatened. The Court stated that whenever necessary, judicial intervention would be used to safeguard the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
After examining the allegations, evidence collected during investigation and the nature of the alleged offences, the Court concluded that the accused were not entitled to bail at this stage.
Advocate Manoj S N appeared on behalf of the petitioners, while Additional State Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha B represented the State.
The ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach towards online harassment and reinforces that digital platforms cannot be used as a means to target individuals through abusive or threatening content.
Case Titles: Chandrashekar B Vs State of Karnataka, Nithin G B Vs State of Karnataka, Prashanth Kareepa Talavar Vs State of Karnataka, Ningaraj Gulappa Talavar Vs State of Karnataka