In Md. Kaif Ansari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli passed a 3-page long order dated July 29, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"the order declaring the petitioner as juvenile stands, we confirm the interim order dated 15th October, 2025 of this Court. 7. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms." The order was uploaded on July 31, 2026. The earlier order had recorded that on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner was a juvenile and in support thereof, he has placed on record the birth certificate and mark-sheet of the petitioner. The order stated: "In case such a plea is taken before the Court concerned, appropriate steps shall be taken for examination of that issue." It granted bail to the petitioner.
The order was passed upon hearing the Special Leave Petition which questioned the correctness of the 3-page long order dated August 8, 2025 passed by Justice Rajiv Roy of the Patna High Court. Justice Roy had rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in connection with FIR/P.S. Case No.175 of 2022 dated May 11, 2022 registered at Police Station Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa, Bihar for the offences under Sections 354 (C),354 (D), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The senior counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the court towards the order dated July 14, 2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa, Bihar declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile. It was submitted that it was a fit case where the interim protection already granted by the Supreme Court should continue. The necessary bail bonds have been furnished in terms of the court’s order dated October 15, 2025.
Notably, Justice Roy had modified the paragraph 2 of his order dated August 8, 2025 on August 21, 2025 because inadvertently, instead of anticipatory bail it was recorded as regular bail.
The prosecution story is that the informant alleged that blackmailing her daughter, the petitioner tried to make physical relationship and also created photos, videos and later allegation is that it was transferred to one of the petitioner’s neighbor, Tanvir which resulted into her life becoming miserable for the victim girl. The panchayati took place but failed and as the accused person threatened them of dire consequences, if any criminal case is lodged, left with no alternative, the FIR.
Justice Roy had recorded: "4. In this case, earlier the co-ordinate Bench and later this Bench tried to mediate but the flip flop continued between both the petitioner and the victim lady relating to tying the nuptial knots." The senior counsel had submitted that allegation of rape was not there, attempt had been alleged. She had alleged that video was made viral but there is nothing of that sort of that was available on record and in that background, the petitioner deserved the relief. The counsel for the informant on the other hand had opposed the prayer for bail submitting that a young girl who is a college going student, her obscene videos were made viral as a result whereof she stopped moving out of the home, her image was tarnished in the eyes of the society and all this is attributed to the petitioner.
Kaif is charged under Section 354C under IPC which deals with voyeurism. Any man who watches, captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation to this section as provided under the Act is as follows-For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably expected to provide privacy and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory: or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public. Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to the third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section. This section makes a man liable if he intentionally watches or captures the picture of a woman doing private acts, which are to be performed in the utmost privacy and the woman believes that she is not observed by anyone. If a woman gives her consent to capture her image or allows to do any act, but not with the purpose that it will be exposed to a third person and if the person shares the picture or spreads it on a wide scale, his act will amount to the offence under the purview of this section and shall be liable to punishment. The offence committed under this section is a cognizable offence and bailable at the time of first conviction. However, if the offender repeats the offence, the nature of the offence is cognizable and non-bailable at the time of second conviction. In both the cases, the offence is triable by any Magistrate having the jurisdiction of the matter. He is also charged under Section 354 D which deals with the offence of stalking.
No comments:
Post a Comment