Introduction:

In the case of Laxmikant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC-32524-2025), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Subodh Abhiyankar, addressed a disturbing incident involving online threats and harassment following a broken engagement. The petitioner, Laxmikant, sought anticipatory bail after being accused of sending threatening and perverted messages to the complainant, a woman he was engaged to six years prior. The engagement had been called off, but the bitterness allegedly lingered, leading to a series of intimidating communications on social media, particularly Instagram. The threats allegedly went so far as to cause the cancellation of the complainant’s subsequent engagement and forced her to withdraw from college due to fear. The FIR was registered under provisions for Stalking [Section 78(1)(ii) and (2)] and Criminal Intimidation [Section 351(2)] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. While ultimately granting anticipatory bail to the accused, the court made strong observations about the inadequacy of the legislative framework in categorizing such conduct as bailable offences, underscoring the plight of young women left without adequate protection against persistent offenders.

Arguments on Behalf of the Applicant:

Counsel for the applicant, Advocate Syed Asif Ali Warsi, contended that the trial court had erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail application despite the offences being bailable in nature. The defence argued that under the relevant provisions of the BNS, the charges do not justify custodial interrogation, and the statutory classification of the offences makes the accused entitled to bail as a matter of right. It was emphasized that the applicant was not a flight risk and that the prosecution’s narrative exaggerated the circumstances to create a perception of greater severity than what was reflected in the statutory provisions. The defence further submitted that there was no physical harm inflicted on the complainant, and the communications, while disputed, did not involve any immediate act of violence. The accused’s counsel also pointed out that his client was willing to cooperate fully with the investigation and comply with any restrictions imposed by the court, including refraining from contacting the complainant. The main thrust of the applicant’s case rested on the statutory framework that treats the alleged offences as bailable, which, according to the defence, should have compelled the trial court to grant bail without delving into unnecessary merit-based considerations.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

On the other side, Government Advocate Apoorv Joshi, appearing for the State, opposed the anticipatory bail plea, highlighting the gravity and impact of the accused’s conduct on the complainant’s life. The prosecution contended that the threats issued by the applicant were not mere verbal outbursts but deliberate, premeditated attempts to control and intimidate the victim even after the relationship had ended. The State argued that the nature of the messages, which included statements such as “Even if you get married, I will ruin your marriage” and “I will not let you get married, no matter what consequences I have to face,” showed a clear intent to cause psychological harm and instill fear of serious consequences, potentially including physical harm or death. It was emphasized that these threats had real-world consequences, as the complainant’s subsequent engagement was called off and she stopped attending college due to fear. The State also underscored that the accused’s own words reflected a willingness to face jail time as part of carrying out his threats, thereby demonstrating an alarming disregard for the law. The prosecution further submitted that such conduct, while technically falling within bailable offences under the current legal framework, should not be treated lightly, as it undermines the safety, dignity, and mental health of women.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

Justice Subodh Abhiyankar began by expressing concern over the legislative gap that leaves victims of such online harassment and threats inadequately protected. The court described it as “rather unfortunate” that sending “depraved or perverted messages on social media” is still categorized under bailable offences, offering little deterrence to offenders. The bench acknowledged that in its wisdom, the legislature has not yet created a specific category of offences designed to address such defiant conduct, despite its serious implications for women, particularly young girls, who are often left with a sense of foreboding and without effective protection from either the State or the courts. The court took a careful look at the threatening messages in question, noting that their tenor clearly demonstrated the applicant’s readiness to follow through on his threats regardless of the legal consequences. In particular, the statements indicated a preparedness to endure imprisonment and a firm resolve to prevent the complainant from marrying, which the court observed could imply the possibility of grave physical harm or even death.

The High Court further examined the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, in which she detailed the distress and disruption caused by the accused’s actions, including the cancellation of her second engagement and her withdrawal from college. While recognizing the seriousness of the intimidation, the bench noted that the offences, as per the current statutory classification, remained bailable. The trial court’s decision to reject the bail application on merits without considering this statutory reality was deemed a legal error. Therefore, the High Court directed the police to release the applicant in the event of his arrest, making the grant of anticipatory bail conditional upon strict restrictions. The court expressly prohibited the accused from contacting the complainant in any manner, directly or indirectly, thereby seeking to balance the statutory entitlement to bail with the need to protect the victim from further harm.

In closing, the judgment serves as both a legal directive and a policy commentary. While the court applied the law as it currently stands to grant anticipatory bail, it also issued a clear signal to the legislature about the urgent need for reform in categorizing and penalizing online threats and harassment against women. The court’s remarks underline the pressing need for stronger legal deterrents and protective measures to ensure that victims are not left vulnerable to further intimidation or psychological trauma.