Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Merely Taking Photographs Not Stalking Under BNS: Himachal Pradesh High Court
|The allegations stem from a First Information Report filed against the petitioner under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely Sections 221, 224, 351(2), and 78.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to an industrialist who was accused of attempting to intimidate a regional officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board by allegedly taking photographs of the officer’s wife.
The allegations stem from a First Information Report filed against the petitioner under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely Sections 221, 224, 351(2), and 78.
A Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held, “In the present case, the allegations in the complaint do not show that the petitioner had followed the informant's wife and contacted her to foster personal interaction. The only allegation is that the petitioner had taken the photographs of the informant's wife, Prima facie, these allegations do not satisfy the definition of stalking.”
Senior Advocate Anand Sharma appeared for the Petitioner and Deputy Advocate General Parshant Sen appeared for the Respondents.
The Court observed, “Section 78 of BNS deals with stalking and punishes a person who follows a woman and contacts such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or other form of electronic communication.”
According to the FIR, the petitioner, an industrialist, had reportedly followed the informant, who is a regional officer in the Pollution Control Board, and had even attempted to hit his car. These acts allegedly occurred after the officer had taken regulatory action against the petitioner for violating environmental laws. The informant further claimed that the petitioner tried to intimidate him by taking photographs and making videos of his wife, ostensibly to coerce him into extending undue favours.
In his defense, the petitioner argued that the FIR was malicious and motivated. He claimed that the officer had earlier demanded a bribe from him, and that he had subsequently lodged a complaint against the officer. The petitioner contended that the present FIR was a retaliatory measure a “counterblast,” as he described it filed in response to his complaint in order to shield the officer and damage the petitioner’s credibility.
Prima facie, the Court held, such conduct does not meet the threshold required to constitute the offence of stalking under the new criminal code.
Cause Title: Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., [2025:HHC:26503]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anand Sharma, Advocate Karan Sharma
Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Parshant Sen, Advocate Jyotirmay Bhatt