After 8 Months In Custody, P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Sending Child Sexual Abuse Material, Directs Psychiatric Exam If Not Already Done

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The allegations arose from 17 tipline reports said to link an Instagram account and mobile number attributed to the petitioner with the repeated sharing of obscene videos or photographs concerning minors.

The petitioner had been in custody since 16 February 2026 and had undergone 8 months and 23 days’ actual custody; the State reported no other criminal case against him.

The Court also noted that the status report did not clarify whether the petitioner had undergone examination by a qualified medical or psychiatric specialist.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The alleged offence was under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the period of custody, the absence of other reported criminal cases, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

No precedent was cited.

The Court treated the allegations involving women and children as serious, while noting that their truth remained for trial.

It considered the petitioner’s substantial period in custody, the absence of any other reported criminal case, and the prospect of a lengthy trial, and concluded that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.

Separately, because the State’s report did not establish whether a specialist examination had occurred, the Court directed that one be arranged if it had not already been undertaken, to identify any underlying condition and inform appropriate intervention.

The Investigating Officer was directed to ensure a specialist medical or psychiatric examination if one had not already occurred.

The petitioner was directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses; the Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial, which should be decided independently and expeditiously.

A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Home Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh for consideration of the suggestion concerning medical examinations.