Anticipatory bail granted for obscene messaging where custodial interrogation is unnecessary and applicant lacks criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 34/2026, where he was accused of sending obscene and objectionable messages to an 18-year-old victim’s mobile phone.

The prosecution alleged the acts amounted to sexual assault.

The applicant contended that the case was a malicious fabrication arising from a ₹10,000 monetary dispute between his family and the victim’s father.

He further argued that coordinates between the families were cordial, evidenced by the victim’s mother visiting his home to borrow a mobile phone.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's use of Instagram to send obscene messages.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail.

The charges involved Sections 75(1) (Sexual harassment), 75(3), and 351 (Criminal intimidation) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material).

The Court also considered the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—specifically the transmission of obscene messages—against the applicant’s personal circumstances and the defense's narrative of a monetary dispute.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that the applicant, a catering business owner and permanent resident, posed little risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.

Crucially, the Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record.

Upon perusing the victim’s Section 183 BNSS statement and considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found that custodial interrogation was not warranted.

The holding directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond with one surety.

This relief was made subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must not threaten witnesses, must appear for all trial dates, must submit Aadhaar verification, and must not involve himself in similar future offences.