HC turns down bail plea of Facebook stalking accused

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 25

You cannot cook up a story and then eat your words. People in Faridabad perhaps learnt something similar after a case for stalking, defamation and other offences was registered against journalists and other persons for posting “obscene” comments on Facebook against a woman politician from the district.

The comments, hovering around the complainant’s visit to Chandigarh, were brought to HC’s notice during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea filed by one of the accused, Chander Shekhar Rawat.

Turning down his plea on June 21, the vacation Bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat observed, “All other accused have since been taken into custody and released on regular bail. However, the petitioner has not so far joined the investigation.”

The matter was placed before Justice Sehrawat’s Bench after the application for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner before the Faridabad Additional Sessions Judge was rejected vide an order dated June 14.

Dismissing the application, the court below had observed that if such posts were read by a common man, he would straightway jump to the conclusion that comments posted on a news item referred to none other than the woman politician from Faridabad.

“The material is obscene in nature and therefore, ingredients of Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act are present. It is not disputed that the said Facebook post was uploaded by the applicant,” the Faridabad court had noted.

Rawat’s counsel submitted the only role alleged against the petitioner was instigating co-accused to put the complainant’s picture on the social networking site, which was not an offence under any provision of the IPC.

He added the post by the petitioner on the social networking site did not contain anything obscene and as such, Section 67-A was not attracted.

Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted the petitioner in the post had claimed having the complainant’s photograph, which he put on the social networking site while conversing with another.

He also submitted that the complainant’s identity was disclosed. 

After hearing rival contentions, the Bench asserted that the court below had not committed any illegality by declining anticipatory bail.