The Rajasthan High Court, while granting bail, has imposed a three-year social media ban upon a youth accused of allegedly uploading morphed photographs of a minor victim on online platforms.

The Court directed his release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties, subject to an explicit undertaking that he shall not access any social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Thread, and Snapchat, under his own or any fictitious name for a period of three years.

The Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain directed, "The applicant-accused shall submit an affidavit/undertaking before the trial Court for not using social media platform including facebook, instagram, thread, snapchat etc. for a period of three years and if it is found that the applicant-accused is using any of the social media platform in his own name or any fictitious name then his bail order may be recalled by the trial Court itself."


Advocate Vikram Singh Jaitawat appeared for the Petitioner-Accused, while PP Narendra Kumar Gehlot appeared for the Respondent-State.

Brief Facts

The present bail application was moved by the applicant-accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking regular bail. The prosecution case arose out of a First Information Report (FIR) registered at Police Station Bheem, District Rajsamand, for offences punishable under Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The cornerstone of the prosecution's case was that the applicant allegedly prepared morphed photographs of the minor victim and uploaded them on social media platforms to defame her.

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the police machinery filed a charge-sheet against the applicant-accused not only under the BNS but also under Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 67A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.

Contentions of the Parties

The applicant-accused contended that the applicant was falsely implicated in the alleged offences and that he had been languishing in judicial custody for a considerable period. It was further submitted that since the investigation stood completed and the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant was no longer required for any custodial interrogation. It was submitted that the applicant was a young individual who shared a friendship with the victim, and deserved an opportunity to reform.

Conversely, the State and the complainant strongly opposed the absence of bail, highlighting the gravity and heinous nature of the offence. It was strenuously argued that the applicant had flagrantly misused online platforms to malign the modesty of a minor girl. It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the trial had already commenced and the material witnesses, including the victim and the informant-mother, had already been examined before the learned Trial Court.

Observations of the Court

Upon hearing the competing submissions and perusing the case diary, the High Court observed that the principal accusation against the applicant-accused pertained to the defamation of the victim via morphed images.

The Court took a grim view of the misuse of social media platforms by the applicant, noting that it was imperative to impose strict digital restrictions to reform the accused and deter online abuse.

However, the Court explicitly observed that since the depositions of the victim and her mother had already been recorded before the Trial Court as prosecution witnesses, the apprehension of the witnesses being influenced or the evidence being tampered with is not present.

Taking into consideration the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the applicant, the fact that the trial was likely to consume substantial time to conclude, and without expressing any opinion on the absolute merits of the case, the Court deemed it a fit case to exercise its discretionary power in favour of the applicant.

Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant-accused on bail upon furnishing a personal bond.

The enlargement on bail was made subject to stringent conditions, including a strict prohibition from contacting the victim or her family, and a specific mandate requiring the applicant to submit an undertaking not to access any social media platforms, under fictitious or genuine names, for a period of three years, failing which the bail would be liable to automatic cancellation.

Cause Title: Tulsa Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026:RJ-JP:30041]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Vikram Singh Jaitawat

Respondents: PP Narendra Kumar Gehlot, Advocates Om Prakash Choudhary and Awar Dan Ujjwal

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: