High Court: Merely taking photographs of a woman does not constitute stalking

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a businessman booked for stalking after allegedly photographing a woman in an attempt to intimidate her husband, a regional pollution control officer (Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.).

Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that, even if the allegations were accepted as true, the ingredients of stalking under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were not satisfied. The provision penalises following a woman and repeatedly contacting her to foster personal interaction despite clear disinterest, or monitoring her online activity.

In the present case, the Court noted, there was no allegation of repeated following or unwanted interaction—only that the petitioner had taken photographs of the informant’s wife. Prima facie, this did not amount to stalking within the statutory definition.

The case arose from an incident in October 2024, when the petitioner allegedly followed and tried to hit the vehicle of the pollution control officer after regulatory action was taken against his business. The officer claimed the petitioner also photographed and filmed his wife to pressure him into granting undue favours.

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, Section 78 is non-bailable—prompting the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail.

The petitioner denied the accusations, alleging instead that the officer had demanded bribes. The State opposed bail, citing call detail records purportedly showing the petitioner was following the officer and his wife, and argued that bail would hamper the investigation. The informant’s counsel supported the State’s position.

The Court, however, allowed the petition, holding that stalking was not prima facie made out and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Appearances:

• For Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Anand Sharma with Adv. Karan Sharma
• For State: Dy. Adv. Gen. Parshant Sen
• For Informant: Adv. Jyotirmay Bhat