Reasons Behind Repeated CSAM Offences Must Be Examined To Prevent Recurrence: P&H High Court Orders Psychiatric Evaluation Of Accused
The Court said that unless reasons behind such conduct are examined, recurrence cannot be effectively addressed; directed Investigating Officer to get accused examined by a qualified specialist.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth, Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in cases of repeated online circulation of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), the investigating agency must examine whether any underlying psychological or psychiatric condition contributes to the alleged conduct. It observed that an accused should not be left in prolonged incarceration without that aspect being examined. The Court directed that the accused be examined by a qualified psychiatrist or other appropriate medical specialist without delay.
The Bench said that unless the reasons behind such conduct are properly examined, the investigating agency cannot effectively address the possibility of its recurrence, and the objective of preventing further victimisation would not be achieved. It granted regular bail to the accused, who had spent over eight months in custody, and ordered a copy of its order to be sent to the Home Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh for consideration of its suggestion on medical examination of such accused persons.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed, “…while dealing with cases involving such allegations, it is equally important to examine whether any underlying psychological or psychiatric factors may be contributing to the alleged behaviour. Unless the reasons behind such conduct are properly examined, the investigating agency may not be able to effectively address the possibility of its recurrence, nor the objective of preventing further victimisation would be adequately achieved…If any such underlying condition exists, the same requires appropriate medical attention and assessment, rather than merely allowing the petitioner to remain incarcerated for an indefinite period without examining that aspect”.
Advocate Kamal Chaudhary appeared for the petitioner and Gaurav Bansal, Deputy Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner approached the Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 CrPC) for regular bail in FIR dated February 4, 2026, registered under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The FIR was based on an investigation report by a Sub-Inspector, relying on a communication from the Online Cybercrime Reporting Portal on Women and Children under the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs. According to it, an Instagram account linked to a mobile number registered in the petitioner’s name had been used to repeatedly send obscene material relating to minors to other users, and 17 tipline reports had been generated.
The State produced a custody certificate dated November 9, 2026 and a status report dated October 6, 2026. The certificate showed that the petitioner had undergone actual custody of eight months and 23 days. The State submitted that the petitioner was allegedly involved in repeatedly uploading obscene videos relating to women and children, and that 17 such instances had come to light.
It noted that the status report did not clarify whether the petitioner had been subjected to any medical or psychiatric examination during investigation. It held that the issue assumed significance given the nature and repetitive character of the allegations, and that if any such condition existed it required medical attention rather than indefinite incarceration. The Court said it viewed such allegations with utmost seriousness, but that the reasons behind such conduct must also be examined.
The Court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate or Duty Magistrate concerned. It directed him not to threaten or influence any prosecution witness. It clarified that its observations are not an expression of opinion on the merits and asked the trial Court to decide the case independently and expeditiously.
Cause Title: Tinku v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:199367)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Kamal Chaudhary.
Respondent: Deputy Advocate General Gaurav Bansal