Introduction:

In the case of Haj Mohamed v State, the Madras High Court grappled with the grave implications of morphing and uploading a woman’s picture on social media. The accused, Haj Mohamed, sought bail under Section 439 CrPC after being booked under various charges, including Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that Mohamed sent obscene messages to the complainant’s brother and, upon being blocked, created a fake Instagram ID to upload morphed images of the brother’s wife. Mohamed contended that the case was fabricated due to a personal dispute. The State argued that the offense not only harmed the woman but also had societal repercussions.

Arguments of both sides:

Mohamed’s counsel argued that the offenses were bailable, and Mohamed had been unjustly incarcerated for two months. They claimed the allegations were motivated by personal animosity and stressed Mohamed’s remorse as evidenced by an affidavit. Conversely, the State emphasized the broader impact on society and cited the severity of Section 67A of the IT Act.

Court’s Judgment:

The court, led by Justice B Pugalendhi, acknowledged the seriousness of the offense, noting its detrimental effects on the victim and society, particularly the younger generation. Despite other offenses being bailable, Section 67A of the IT Act warranted caution due to its potential five-year imprisonment clause. Balancing these considerations, the court denied bail, highlighting the need to deter such misconduct.