The seriousness of attempting to malign the character of a married lady in society, especially through social media, influenced the court's decision in denying anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.139/2019 of Police Station Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A and 509 IPC and Sections 67 and 67-A of Information Technology Act. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner neither made any call to Shrawan Singh nor made any objectionable statements regarding the wife of the complainant during his conversation with Shrawan Singh on mobile phone. It is also submitted that there is no evidence of this effect that the conversation between the petitioner and Shrawan Singh was made viral from the mobile phone of the petitioner. It is further submitted that when the petitioner did not make viral the conversation between him and Shrawan Singh, no offence punishable under Sections 67 and 67-A of IT Act is made out against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

5. The complainant in his complaint and his wife in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., have specifically alleged that the petitioner made very objectionable and derogatory statements about the character of the wife of the complainant during his conversation on mobile phone with one Shrawan Singh and after recording the said conversation, he made it viral on social media.

6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 29.08.2019, wherein he has admitted that he had a conversation with Shrawan Singh in the month of April, 2019 on mobile phone, in which he gave some statements regarding wife of the complainant and the said conversation became viral on social media.

7. As per the direction given by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the transcript of the conversation between the petitioner and Shrawan Singh and from perusal of the same, it is clear that the petitioner had informed Shrawan Singh that wife of the complainant is having illicit relationship with the persons of a particular community and asserted that since the complainant's house is near to his house, he is aware about the said fact.

8. The case would be different if the petitioner made any statement about the character of wife of the complainant in private conversation with any person but if the conversation became viral on social media it become serious. An attempt of any person to malign the character of a married lady in society or public cannot be taken lightly.

9. So far as the question whether the petitioner made viral the conversation took place between him and Shrawan Singh on social media or not is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the mobile phone used by the petitioner is required to be seized and thereafter only it can be ascertained whether the conversation between the petitioner and Shrawan Singh was made viral by the petitioner or not.

10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.