The Karnataka High Court has refused to grant bail to accused booked for allegedly posting derogatory and abusive comments against the wife of a film actor, Darshan, observing that online platforms cannot be used as tools for harassment and intimidation of women.
Justice S. Rachaiah dismissed separate bail petitions filed by accused, who were arrested in connection with a crime registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences under the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, the complainant is the wife of an eminent film actor whose movie was released on December 11, 2025. The complainant had participated in a programme held in Davangere on December 21, 2025, following which certain remarks allegedly made by her were misinterpreted, leading to a barrage of derogatory comments on social media platforms. Aggrieved by the comments, she lodged a complaint with the Cyber Crime Police, which led to registration of the case and commencement of investigation.
Before the Court, the accused argued that they had merely posted comments on existing social media posts and had neither created nor uploaded any independent content. They contended that the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against them were not attracted and sought release on bail.
The State opposed the pleas, submitting that cyber offences had become a growing menace and the accused had used social media platforms to target and harass the complainant through offensive remarks. Rejecting the petitions, the Court made strong observations on misuse of social media and the need to protect the dignity of women. In one of the accused’s case, the Court observed:
“
“No doubt, social media is designed to facilitate communication and allow individuals to express their ideas and share views that contribute favorably to the development of the nation. However, some miscreants misuse the liberty of speech and expression conferred under the Constitution by exceeding their legitimate limits.”
Refusing to grant bail, the Court observed that the allegations indicated misuse of social media platforms to harass and intimidate a woman through abusive and offensive language. The Court emphasized that the dignity and self-respect of women must be protected and underscored the role of constitutional courts in safeguarding their fundamental rights. It further noted that judicial intervention in such cases helps instill confidence among women that the legal system will protect them from online abuse and harassment. The Court remarked:
“
“Once confidence is instilled in the minds of women that the Courts stand ready to protect their fundamental rights and interests, they can live in society peacefully, without fear or hesitation…The derogatory words used by the petitioner on his Instagram account against the complainant must be dealt with strictly. To send a strong message to deter such evil minds and regulate such menace in society, it is appropriate to reject the bail application.”
In the another accused case, Justice Rachaiah highlighted that freedom of speech is not absolute and carries corresponding responsibilities. The Court also remarked that social media platforms and their users must maintain public order and decorum, adding that courts would not remain passive when constitutional rights are violated through online abuse. The Court stated:
“
“Social Media as its responsibility to maintain decorum and also to instill the confidence in the mind of the citizens of this Country. The persons who are making comments on any issues have to maintain public peace and order. Making a baseless, false, frivolous and intimidating messages are required to be regulated by the Company itself, if not, Courts are required to secure the confidence of the citizens of this Country by way of the social media which violates the fundamental rights of any citizens of this Country.
It is significant to state that Courts are not mute spectators. Whenever interference is required, the Courts without hesitation, will step into safeguarding the rights and interests of individuals or the public, guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”
Holding that the allegations disclosed serious misuse of social media and that a strong message was required to deter such conduct, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused and rejected both bail petitions.
Appearances
For the Petitioners: Sri. Manoj S. N., Advocate.
For the State of Karnataka: Smt. Pushpalatha B., Additional Special Public Prosecutor.
Sri. Chandrashekar B. v. State of Karnataka
Preview PDF
Karnataka HC Denies Bail to 4 Accused Persons for Posting Derogatory Social Media Comments Against Actor Darshan’s Wife
Sri. Chandrashekar B. v. State of Karnataka by Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City, Criminal Petition No. 1921 of 2026 & Sri. Nithin G.B. v. State of Karnataka by Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City, Criminal Petition No. 1890 of 2026 [Order dated May 29, 2026]
Sakshi Singh
The Karnataka High Court has refused to grant bail to accused booked for allegedly posting derogatory and abusive comments against the wife of a film actor, Darshan, observing that online platforms cannot be used as tools for harassment and intimidation of women.
Justice S. Rachaiah dismissed separate bail petitions filed by accused, who were arrested in connection with a crime registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences under the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, the complainant is the wife of an eminent film actor whose movie was released on December 11, 2025. The complainant had participated in a programme held in Davangere on December 21, 2025, following which certain remarks allegedly made by her were misinterpreted, leading to a barrage of derogatory comments on social media platforms. Aggrieved by the comments, she lodged a complaint with the Cyber Crime Police, which led to registration of the case and commencement of investigation.
Before the Court, the accused argued that they had merely posted comments on existing social media posts and had neither created nor uploaded any independent content. They contended that the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against them were not attracted and sought release on bail.
The State opposed the pleas, submitting that cyber offences had become a growing menace and the accused had used social media platforms to target and harass the complainant through offensive remarks. Rejecting the petitions, the Court made strong observations on misuse of social media and the need to protect the dignity of women. In one of the accused’s case, the Court observed:
“
“No doubt, social media is designed to facilitate communication and allow individuals to express their ideas and share views that contribute favorably to the development of the nation. However, some miscreants misuse the liberty of speech and expression conferred under the Constitution by exceeding their legitimate limits.”
Refusing to grant bail, the Court observed that the allegations indicated misuse of social media platforms to harass and intimidate a woman through abusive and offensive language. The Court emphasized that the dignity and self-respect of women must be protected and underscored the role of constitutional courts in safeguarding their fundamental rights. It further noted that judicial intervention in such cases helps instill confidence among women that the legal system will protect them from online abuse and harassment. The Court remarked:
“
“Once confidence is instilled in the minds of women that the Courts stand ready to protect their fundamental rights and interests, they can live in society peacefully, without fear or hesitation…The derogatory words used by the petitioner on his Instagram account against the complainant must be dealt with strictly. To send a strong message to deter such evil minds and regulate such menace in society, it is appropriate to reject the bail application.”
In the another accused case, Justice Rachaiah highlighted that freedom of speech is not absolute and carries corresponding responsibilities. The Court also remarked that social media platforms and their users must maintain public order and decorum, adding that courts would not remain passive when constitutional rights are violated through online abuse. The Court stated:
“
“Social Media as its responsibility to maintain decorum and also to instill the confidence in the mind of the citizens of this Country. The persons who are making comments on any issues have to maintain public peace and order. Making a baseless, false, frivolous and intimidating messages are required to be regulated by the Company itself, if not, Courts are required to secure the confidence of the citizens of this Country by way of the social media which violates the fundamental rights of any citizens of this Country.
It is significant to state that Courts are not mute spectators. Whenever interference is required, the Courts without hesitation, will step into safeguarding the rights and interests of individuals or the public, guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”
Holding that the allegations disclosed serious misuse of social media and that a strong message was required to deter such conduct, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused and rejected both bail petitions.
Appearances
For the Petitioners: Sri. Manoj S. N., Advocate.
For the State of Karnataka: Smt. Pushpalatha B., Additional Special Public Prosecutor.
Preview PDF
Preview PDF
Other Posts
No Vested Right; Patna High Court Rejects Compassionate Appointment Claim Filed 11 Years After Employee’s Death
SC Orders Refund of ₹150 Crore to Raghava Square in IVRCL Liquidation Dispute, Allows Fresh Participation in Auction
Mere Presence Near Vehicle Does Not Establish Conscious Possession; Patna High Court Quashes Excise Case
Categories