Srinagar, Oct 03: Chief Judicial Magistrate on Tuesday rejected the bail of a man who allegedly shared nude photographs and videos of a woman.
According to a prosecution, Cyber Police Station Srinagar received a complaint from the woman, alleging “cyber harassment and sharing of explicit contents.”
The lady stated that she was in a relationship with the accused namely Junaid Majeed Khandayof HMT Umerabad Srinagar following a marriage proposal.
However, the woman said that after some time, the accused made “unauthorized and forcible” access to her mobile device and misused it.
She said that the accused uploaded “nude and explicit videos and photos” on different platforms as Snapchat, Instagram and virtual numbers generated by him and he has exposed my person to virtual world and violated my privacy rights, as a result of resistance shown by me against his torture and harassment.”
The woman said that the accused threatened her that he will get her brother trapped in militancy and drugs case and will drag her father to the road if she refuses to marry him. Moreover, he threatened her that he will make photos and videos viral which were taken by his phone. Subsequently, the accused shared the “nude videos and photos” on various online platforms on August 10.
On perusal of contents of the application and evidences provided by her including the act of Instagram, Snapchat and WhatsApp, police filed an FIR under section 66, 43, 66, 67, 67-A IT Act besides 506, 509 of IPC.
Later the accused was arrested as during question police recovered the phone in which the videos and pictures of the woman were found. Subsequent to the arrest, a court had rejected his bail application. Later he filed fresh bail application which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar Raja Mohammad Tasleem today.
“The most important thing to be noted is that the concerned Court while deciding the successive bail application can not presume the substantial and circumstantial change in the case unless pleaded specifically and expressly by Counsel for the applicant,” the court said, adding, “Further in case the successive bail applications are decided by the trial courts without taking into account substantial and circumstantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case, it shall definitely be encroachment of powers of the superior courts and shall definitely amount to casualty of propriety and judicial discipline.” Subsequently, the court rejected the bail application of the accused.
