HC Denies Anticipatory Bail Under BNS for Stalking Crimes

In a significant ruling regarding digital harassment and stalking, the Delhi High Court has denied an anticipatory bail application filed by a law student, Vivek Deep, who is currently facing charges under the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the case, underscored the gravity of the allegations and rejected the plea, citing the need for custodial interrogation to address a persistent pattern of harassment.

Case Background

The FIR, registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, arises from a volatile history involving the applicant, Vivek Deep, and a complainant identified as "M." The prosecution alleges that over several months, the applicant engaged in a campaign of intimidation, using social media platforms—including Facebook, WhatsApp, and YouTube—to circulate obscene and defamatory content involving the complainant and her daughter.

Beyond digital abuse, the complainant reported incidents of physical intimidation, claiming the applicant visited her residence, vandalized her property, and issued constant threats, including demands for sexual favors. Mr. Deep, however, contended that the FIR was a "counterblast" to ongoing legal disputes between the parties and claimed he was being falsely implicated to settle scores regarding pending cases in the Sonipat courts.

Arguments Presented

The applicant’s defense argued that he is a law student whose career would be irreparably damaged by arrest. He asserted that the current complaint was part of a series of "false and fabricated" cases initiated by the complainant to harass him, pointing to his prior acquittals in similar matters. He further alleged that the police had failed to follow the procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ) when attempting his arrest.

Conversely, the State emphasized that despite the service of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS , the applicant remained non-cooperative and continued to issue threats to both the complainant and the investigating officer via digital platforms. The State argued that custodial interrogation was essential to recover material evidence and protect the safety of the witnesses.

Legal Analysis

The Court observed that while the applicant had previous acquittals, they did not translate into an "automatic entitlement to bail," especially when faced with fresh, distinct allegations of a "continuing course of conduct." The judge distinguished between isolated incidents and the persistent nature of the applicant’s behavior against the complainant and her family.

Crucially, the Court invoked the principles surrounding the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail. Referring to the Supreme Court’s stance in * Srikant Upadhyay vs. State of Bihar *, the High Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an "extraordinary power" rather than a rule, noting that it should be exercised with caution, particularly when the accused's conduct suggests a high risk of tempering with potential evidence or further intimidating the victim.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted the applicant's conduct as a primary factor in the denial of his plea:

• "The allegations in the present are not merely of a single isolated incident but reveal troublesome conduct of the Applicant spanning over several months, involving physical intimidation and digital harassment."
• "The Applicant has continued to call and message the daughter of the Complainant and threatened the Complainant and her daughter through SMS and late-night calls, even after the present FIR was lodged."
• "The seriousness of the accusations, the possibility of the Applicant influencing or threatening the Complainant, his conduct throughout the proceedings, weigh heavily against the grant of Anticipatory Bail."

Court's Decision

Directing that the application for anticipatory bail be dismissed, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna concluded that the applicant’s potential for misuse of liberty was too high to grant relief. The decision emphasizes the judiciary's strict approach toward cases involving digital stalking and persistent harassment under the new legal framework of the BNS.

The ruling leaves the applicant without protection from arrest, allowing the Delhi Police to proceed with their investigation, including potential custodial questioning as requested by the State.