Obscene WhatsApp Video Call Allegations: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in IT Act Case
Case Name: Amit Kumar v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 07 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-72560-2025
Bench: Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of making obscene video calls and threatening the complainant under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The Court held that the allegations were serious in nature and custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation and recovery of the mobile phone used in the alleged offence.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0029 dated 20.07.2025 registered under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Cyber Crime, Amritsar.
According to the prosecution, the complainant Anjali had earlier been married to one Roshan Lal but had been deserted by him in 2007. Around five years prior to lodging the complaint, she came into contact with the petitioner Amit Kumar, who represented that he operated a travel agency under the name “JMC Travel”. The complainant approached the petitioner for sending her son abroad and allegedly paid ₹2,00,000 in cash. Her son was subsequently sent to Dubai in October 2020.
Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly started visiting the complainant’s house and the two developed a relationship. The complainant alleged that in April 2021 the petitioner performed a marriage ceremony with her at a temple in Amritsar but asked her to keep the marriage secret. Later, she discovered that the petitioner was already married to another woman, Sonia Sharma. When she confronted him, he allegedly assaulted her which led to a miscarriage.
The complainant further alleged that after they separated, the petitioner continued to contact her through phone calls and threatened to circulate her videos online. It was also alleged that the petitioner made WhatsApp calls to her and on one occasion appeared in a nude condition during a video call. Despite objections from the complainant, he allegedly continued to harass and threaten her. Based on these allegations, the present FIR under the Information Technology Act was registered.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and that the relationship between the parties was consensual. It was further contended that the FIR contained vague allegations without specifying dates or details. The petitioner also alleged that the complainant had attempted to blackmail him by demanding ₹8 lakh or a house in her name and lodged the FIR after he refused to comply.
The State opposed the anticipatory bail application, submitting that a pen drive containing a screen recording of the WhatsApp video call allegedly made by the petitioner in a nude condition had been secured by the Investigating Officer. It was also argued that the petitioner was absconding and avoiding arrest, and that his custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the mobile phone used in the commission of the alleged offence.
After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, the High Court observed that the allegations involved making obscene video calls and threatening the complainant with circulation of such content through electronic means. The Court noted that the screen recording of the alleged call had already been preserved and that the recovery of the mobile phone used in the offence was crucial for the investigation.
The Court held that since the investigation was still in progress and custodial interrogation was required to recover the device used for committing the alleged offence, the case was not fit for granting anticipatory bail.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner Amit Kumar, observing that custodial interrogation was necessary in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the requirements of the ongoing investigation.