The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to a businessman, ruling that taking photos of a woman without repeated contact or following does not meet the legal definition of stalking under BNS Section 78. The case involved allegations of intimidation against a pollution control officer.
Srinagar: On August 14, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a businessman booked in a stalking case, where he was accused of taking photographs of a woman to allegedly intimidate her husband, a regional pollution control officer.
The order was passed by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, who observed that even if the allegations against the petitioner were accepted as true, the offence of stalking was not made out in the present case.
The Court pointed out that Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines stalking as when a person follows a woman and contacts her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest, or monitors her use of the internet, email, etc.
The Court made it clear that there were no such allegations in this case.
The court said,
“In the present case, the allegations in the complaint do not show that the petitioner had followed the informant’s wife and contacted her to foster personal interaction. The only allegation is that the petitioner had taken the photographs of the informant’s wife, Prima facie, these allegations do not satisfy the definition of stalking,”
According to the complaint, in October 2024, the petitioner allegedly followed and tried to hit the vehicle of the pollution control officer after action was taken against his business for violating environmental laws.
The officer claimed that the petitioner attempted to intimidate him into giving undue favours and, as part of these tactics, took photos and videos of his wife.
An FIR was registered under Sections 221 (obstructing public servant), 224 (threat of injury to public servant), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 78 (stalking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Most of these offences are bailable, but stalking under Section 78 is non-bailable. Because of this, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The businessman denied all allegations and accused the pollution control officer of demanding bribes. The State opposed the bail plea, claiming that call detail records showed the petitioner was following the officer and his wife. It also argued that granting anticipatory bail would obstruct the investigation.
The pollution control officer’s lawyer also urged the Court to reject the petition.
However, the Court decided to grant anticipatory bail, stating that the offence of stalking was not prima facie established and that custodial interrogation was not necessary in this matter.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Anand Sharma with Advocate Karan Sharma. The State was represented by Deputy Advocate General Parshant Sen, while Advocate Jyotirmay Bhat appeared for the informant.
Case Title:
Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stalking
