Morphing Woman's Picture And Uploading It On Social Media Not Only Damages Her Morality But Also Affects Younger Social Media Users: Madras High Court

Justice B Pugalendhi noted that while all the other offenses alleged were bailable, the accused was also booked under Section 67 A of the Information Technology Act. Thus, considering the gravity/ impact of the offence and the period of imprisonment provided under the Information Technology Act, the court was not inclined the grant bail.

“The allegation levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature. Morphing a woman's picture and uploading it in the social media. Not only it will damage the woman's morality and her family, but it will also disturb and may deviate the others, particularly the younger generation, who are using the social media,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Haj Mohamed seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution case was that Mohamed sent obscene and vulgar messages to the de facto complainant's brother. After the brother blocked his ID, Mohamed created a fake Instagram ID and morphed the images of the de facto complainant's brother's wife and uploaded it in the fake ID.

Mohamed argued that the case was foisted on an ill motive as the de facto complainant's brother and Mohamed had a dispute. It was also argued that all offences, which have been alleged, are bailable and still he has been incarcerated for the past 2 months. Mohamed's counsel informed the court that he had advised Mohamed not to indulge in such offences and he had also filed an affidavit in this regard.

Objecting to the bail petition, the State argued that the offence was not against the woman alone but impacted society as well.

The court noted that while the offences for which FIR was registered are bailable, the offence under Section 67A of the IT Act was an exemption under which the imprisonment may extend to five years for a first-time offender. Further, as per Section 77 B of the IT Act, the offences with 3-year imprisonment alone were bailable.

Thus, the court was not inclined to grant bail and dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 223

Case Title: Haj Mohamed v State

Case No: Crl.OP(MD)No.5108 of 2024