Facts of the Case:

An FIR was registered against the Petitioner, charging him 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 (BNS), 2023. As per the facts of the case, the Informant, a Regional Officer in the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, acted against the Petitioner, an industrialist. According to the Informant, the Petitioner allegedly tried to intimidate him, followed him, and attempted to hit his vehicle. The Petitioner also allegedly took photographs of the Informant’s wife and tried to compel the informant to grant undue favour to him. Subsequently, the police registered the FIR and examined call records to find that the Petitioner and the Informant were located in overlapping areas on the day of the alleged incident. The Petitioner filed a petition before the Court seeking pre-arrest bail in the present case.

Contention of the Petitioner:

The Petitioner argued that he was a law-abiding citizen and that the FIR was a counterblast to complaints he had earlier filed against the Informant regarding alleged demands for bribes. The Petitioner further submitted that the only non-bailable charge was under Section 78 BNS (stalking), which was not attracted since there was no allegation of repeated contact or persistent attempts to foster personal interaction with the Informant’s wife. Moreover, the Petitioner contended that custodial interrogation was not required and that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

Contention of the Respondents:

The State opposed the bail, contending that call detail records indicated the Petitioner was following the Informant, and that the investigation was still underway. The Informant reiterated that the Petitioner had intimidated him, attempted to hit his vehicle, and taken photographs of his wife. It was contended by the Informant that releasing the Petitioner would endanger the Informant’s safety and hamper the investigation.

Court’s observations:

The Court relied on the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in the Case of P.

Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019), and observed that ordinarily pre-arrest bail is a privilege that should only be granted in exceptional cases. Turning to the facts of the case, the Court observed that Section 78 BNS (Stalking) requires allegations of following a woman and contacting her to foster personal interaction despite disinterest:

“Section 78 of BNS deals with stalking and punishes a person who follows a woman and contacts such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or other form of electronic communication.”

The Court held that 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, and that the only allegation is that the Petitioner had taken photographs of the Informant’s wife, which prima facie does not satisfy the definition of ‘stalking.’ Additionally, the Court also observed that the Petitioner had already joined the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not required.

Court’s Order:

The Petition was allowed, and the earlier order of the Court was made absolute. The Court additionally, clarified that the observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not affect the merits of the case.

Written by Adv. Prerna Murarka