Taking photos of woman does not always amount to stalking: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a businessman who was booked in a stalking case after he allegedly took photographs of a woman during an alleged bid to intimidate her husband, a regional pollution control officer [Krishan Kumar Kasana V State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr]..Justice Rakesh Kainthla passed the order after noting that even if the allegations are true, the offence of stalking does not appear to be made out against the accused. The Court explained that Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, BNS (BNS) deals with stalking by punishing any person who follows a woman and contacts such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest, or monitors the woman's use of the internet, email, etc. However, no such allegation was made in the present case, the Court pointed out. "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," the Court said. .The petitioner before the Court had been accused of following and trying to hit a vehicle driven by a pollution control officer in October 2024, after the official took some action against the petitioner's business for a violation of environmental law. The official claimed that the petitioner tried to hit his vehicle to intimidate him and get undue favours. He also alleged that the petitioner took photos and videos of his wife as part of his intimidatory tactics. .A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the petitioner, citing the offences under Sections 221 (obstructing public servant), 224 (threat of injury to public servant), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 78 (stalking) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Most of these charges were bailable in nature. Only Section 78 (stalking), BNS was a non-bailable offence. The petitioner eventually moved a plea for anticipatory bail in the matter, since this non-bailable offence was also invoked against him. .The petitioner denied the allegations against him, and counter-accused the pollution control official of demanding bribes. The State submitted that there were call detail records which showed that the petitioner was following the informant (pollution official) and his wife. It added that allowing the petitioner anticipatory bail would hamper the ongoing investigation. The informant/ pollution official's counsel too joined the State in urging the Court to dismiss the anticipatory bail plea. .The Court, however, eventually allowed the plea after noting that the offence of stalking did not appear to be made out against the petitioner, and on opining that there was no need for custodial interrogation in this case. .Senior Advocate Anand Sharma with Advocate Karan Sharma appeared for petitioner. Deputy Advocate General Parshant Sen appeared for the State.Advocate Jyotirmay Bhat appeared for the informant. .[Read Order]