Back
Mumbai Court Discharges Vishal Jha in Bulli Bai Case: Merely Following App Not an Offence
In a significant ruling that draws a sharp line between passive digital association and active criminal participation, a has discharged Vishal Sudhirkumar Jha from all charges in the infamous Bulli Bai app case. Judicial Magistrate R.T. Ingle of the held on , that merely following the Bulli Bai application—hosted on GitHub and used to display morphed photographs of over 100 Muslim women for a purported “auction”—does not constitute any offence under the or the . The order marks the first in this high-profile cybercrime investigation, which had led to the arrest of six individuals in .
The court found that the prosecution’s entire case against Jha rested on two allegations: that he followed the Bulli Bai app and that he was in contact with some of the co-accused. Critically, the investigating officer could not produce any evidence that Jha shared the app on his Twitter handle or contributed in any way to its creation or the uploading of the women’s photographs. Relying on a precedent from the , the magistrate ruled that “ the App will not constitute the offence as alleged by the prosecution.”
The Bulli Bai Controversy: Background
The Bulli Bai app surfaced on GitHub on , and quickly triggered nationwide outrage. The platform displayed doctored photographs of prominent Muslim women—including journalists, activists, and academics—alongside derogatory captions and an interface that purported to “auction” them off. The app was a direct sequel to the “Sulli Deals” scandal of , where similar photographs of nearly 80 Muslim women had been posted on a separate GitHub-hosted platform.
’s Cyber Cell registered an FIR under multiple provisions: Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 153B (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), 354D (stalking), 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman), 500 (criminal defamation), 120B (), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with , along with (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form). Vishal Jha, then a 25-year-old engineering student in Bengaluru, was arrested on , and later granted bail in after the court observed that older co-accused had taken advantage of his immaturity.
The Allegations Against Jha
According to the charge-sheet, the main accused, Niraj Bishnoi, created the Bulli Bai app. Jha’s alleged role was peripheral: the prosecution claimed he “followed” the app on GitHub and was in regular contact with Bishnoi and other co-accused, sharing a common ideology. The informant—a woman who found her photograph on the app—stated in her FIR that Jha, along with others, had shared the app on their Twitter accounts.
During the hearing, however, the prosecution’s own investigating officer admitted under court scrutiny that no material existed to show that Jha had actually shared the app. The app had been taken down very soon after its launch, and no record of Jha’s Twitter activity related to Bulli Bai could be retrieved. , representing Jha, argued that the charge-sheet disclosed no offence against him because the only act attributed to him was following the app. She relied on the ’s decision in Mohd. Imran Kazi v. State of U.P. , which held that simply following a page on a website is not a punishable offence under the IT Act.
Court’s Reasoning: Following App Not an Offence
Magistrate Ingle’s order systematically dismantled the prosecution’s case. After personally questioning the investigating officer, the court recorded that “the I.O. could not show that the applicant shared the Bullibai App in the entire charge-sheet.” The only role that remained attributed to Jha was that he followed the app and was in contact with co-accused.
The court then examined whether these two facts could support a charge. On the act of following, the magistrate held unequivocally: “So, the App will not constitute the offence as alleged by the prosecution.” This conclusion was bolstered by the precedent, which the magistrate adopted as binding.
On the allegation of contact with co-accused, the court observed that mere familiarity or communication does not automatically make a person criminally liable for the acts of others. “So far as, the allegation of the prosecution that, applicant was in contact with the co-accused, does not make him liable for the act of co-accused,” the judge wrote. The charge-sheet showed that Jha and the other accused knew each other, but there was nothing to indicate that Jha shared any content related to the crime or assisted in creating the app.
Crucially, the court noted that even the prosecution did not allege that Jha had supplied the morphed photographs of Muslim women to Niraj Bishnoi. “May be the applicant has followed Bullibai App due to his familiarity with the co-accused and contact with them, but, in entire charge-sheet there is no further role of the present applicant which would show that, he either created said App or the help co-accused in creating it,” the magistrate held.
Legal Precedent and Analysis
The court’s reliance on Mohd. Imran Kazi v. State of U.P. () is noteworthy. In that case, the quashed an FIR against a person who had merely “liked” or “followed” a Facebook page containing objectionable content, ruling that such passive conduct does not amount to an offence under the IT Act. The ’s observation in Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P. () was also cited, where the apex court clarified that under , a court is bound to an accused if there is no to proceed against him.
The order thus reinforces the principle that digital footprints—such as following, liking, or being in contact—cannot substitute for direct evidence of participation in a . For legal professionals, the ruling serves as a reminder that the threshold for under Section 227 remains a “strong suspicion” test, not mere speculation or association. The court’s insistence on examining the investigating officer in open court to verify the charge-sheet’s claims underscores the judiciary’s role in preventing prosecutorial overreach.
Impact on Cybercrime Prosecutions
This is likely to have ripple effects beyond the Bulli Bai case. In an era where social media and online platforms generate vast amounts of metadata about users’ interactions, prosecutors often rely on evidence of “following,” “sharing,” or “contacting” to build conspiracy cases. The Bandra magistrate’s order cautions that such digital breadcrumbs, without more, cannot sustain a criminal charge.
For the remaining five accused in the Bulli Bai case—including Niraj Bishnoi and Mayank Rawat—the ruling does not directly apply, as their alleged roles involve more active participation. Rawat’s plea was earlier rejected by the same court after finding material that he had downloaded photographs of Muslim women and posted them on the app. The distinction drawn by the court between passive followers and active contributors will guide future investigations into similar cyber harassment cases.
The order also highlights the importance of preserving digital evidence promptly. Since the Bulli Bai app was taken down within days of its launch, the prosecution could not retrieve Jha’s alleged sharing activity. This practical difficulty—common in cybercrime cases—places a burden on investigating agencies to secure and preserve evidence before platforms remove or delete content.
Conclusion
Vishal Jha’s from the Bulli Bai case is a victory for and a cautionary tale for overbroad cybercrime investigations. By holding that “” does not equate to criminal complicity, the has reinforced the fundamental principle that guilt must be personal and based on concrete evidence. As the legal community watches the remaining proceedings, this decision stands as a clear precedent that digital association alone is not enough to charge a person with serious criminal offences. The state has the option to challenge the before a higher court, but for now, the order provides a measured and legally sound resolution to one of India’s most notorious online harassment cases.
