Recently, the Delhi High Court highlighted the increasing misuse of social media and technology to exploit and intimidate vulnerable individuals, especially minors.

In its ruling, the court denied the accused's anticipatory bail application, stating that granting pre-arrest bail would set a harmful precedent and undermine societal efforts to safeguard children from such exploitation.

The bench of Justice Amit Mahajan highlighted that there is an “increasing misuse of social media and technology to exploit and intimidate vulnerable individuals, particularly minors”. 

An FIR was filed based on a complaint by a 15-year-old girl studying in Class 11 alleging she was subjected to sexual harassment and exploitation by the accused. Per the complaint, in November of 2022, the accused reached out to the minor girl and began following her on her way to school. 

Despite her refusal, the accused persisted and contacted the victim on Instagram, claiming he wanted a "normal friendship." When she continued to decline communication, the accused sent her a nude photograph of herself and threatened to make it public unless she met his demands. Fearing public humiliation, the victim was coerced into engaging with the accused through Instagram video calls.

Advocate Kashif Athar, representing the accused, argued that his client was falsely accused. He stated that the accused had left for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in early September 2024, and returned voluntarily upon learning about the FIR. 

In response, Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar, representing the State, emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to recover the electronic devices allegedly used in the commission of the offenses, as well as to investigate the potential circulation of explicit material.

The court observed that the investigation was still in its early stages. It noted that the factors influencing the grant of pre-arrest bail were significantly different from those considered in regular bail applications, where the accused is already in custody, and substantial investigative progress has been made. 

The court also emphasized the established legal principle that granting pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is an exceptional measure and should be exercised with caution. It further highlighted that custodial interrogation is generally more effective in gathering information than questioning an accused who is protected by a favorable order under Section 482.

“The allegations against the applicant are of a grave and serious nature, involving the exploitation and sexual abuse of a minor girl. The applicant is accused of coercing the victim into engaging in sexually explicit acts over video calls, recording the same without her consent, and using these recordings to blackmail her repeatedly”, the court noted. 

The court noted that this case underscored the increasing misuse of social media and technology to exploit and intimidate vulnerable individuals, especially minors. After reviewing the allegations and evidence, the court concluded that granting pre-arrest bail would set an inappropriate precedent and undermine efforts to protect children from such serious offenses.

The court highlighted the troubling trend of using the anonymity and extensive reach of social media platforms to commit sexual crimes against minors. It recognized the wider societal implications of such offenses and emphasized the need to send a strong message against the misuse of technology.

Given the involvement of electronic devices and digital evidence, the court acknowledged the challenging nature of the investigation. It ruled that the investigating agency should be allowed the necessary scope to conduct a comprehensive inquiry without interference from a pre-arrest bail order.

While pre-arrest bail serves as a safeguard to protect individuals from the potential abuse of arrest powers, the court stressed the need to balance this with the demands of justice. Although the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty are fundamental, they must be considered alongside the severity of the offense, its societal impact, and the need for an unhindered investigation.

After reviewing the case materials, the court found no evidence suggesting that the investigation was aimed at harming or humiliating the accused or that he had been falsely implicated. Granting pre-arrest bail in this instance would have impeded the investigation's progress. As a result, the court dismissed the bail application.