The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a businessman accused in a stalking case, ruling that merely taking photographs of a woman without repeated contact or following does not meet the legal definition of stalking under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, who passed the order, noted:
“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.”
According to the complaint, in October 2024, the petitioner allegedly followed and tried to hit the vehicle of a regional pollution control officer after action was taken against his business for environmental violations. It was alleged that, as part of attempts to intimidate the officer, the petitioner took photos and videos of the officer’s wife.
An FIR was registered under Sections 221 (obstructing public servant), 224 (threat of injury to public servant), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 78 (stalking) of the BNS. While most of these offences are bailable, stalking is non-bailable, prompting the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail.
The businessman denied the allegations and accused the officer of demanding bribes. The State opposed the bail plea, citing call detail records and arguing that bail could hinder the investigation.
Despite the opposition, the Court found no prima facie case of stalking and ruled that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Senior Advocate Anand Sharma with Advocate Karan Sharma represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Parshant Sen appeared for the State and Advocate Jyotirmay Bhat represented the informant.
Case: Krishan Kumar Kasana vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. – Available on LAWFYI.IO
