Patna High Court
Indu Kumar Thakur @ Indrajeet Thakur @ Indrajeet SarmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the informant’s voluntary posting of the photographs precludes a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 66D and 66E, and therefore they are entitled to pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Indu Kumar Thakur and Sonali Sah, were arrested in connection with a case under Sections 66D and 66E of the Information Technology Act for allegedly making private photographs posted by the informant on Instagram go viral. The informant contended that the petitioners captured and disseminated the images without consent, while the petitioners argued that the informant herself had voluntarily posted the photographs, knowing they would be accessible to her followers. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had ordered their detention, prompting the petitioners to seek pre‑arrest bail. The High Court examined the FIR, the district court’s observations, and the submissions of counsel, concluding that the informant’s own act of posting the images negated a prima facie case against the petitioners. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioners be released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents and compliance with Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable under Sections 66D and 66E of the IT Act for viral dissemination of photographs posted by the informant on Instagram.
- Whether the informant’s voluntary posting of the photographs constitutes consent, thereby negating criminal liability of the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail in view of the facts alleged in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66D, 66E
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Information Technology Act
- Section 66D
- Section 66E
- privacy violation
- social media
- consent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87056 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- ANDHRATHARHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Indu Kumar Thakur @ Indrajeet Thakur @ Indrajeet Sarma Son of
Ramchandra Sharma @ Ram Chandra Thakur R/o Village - Duborbona,
P.S.- Lalmaniya, District - Madhubani.
2. Sonali Sah @ Sonali Kumari D/o Vijay Sah R/o Village - Khutauna, P.S. -
Khutauna, District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
For the informant :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Aditya Narayan
Singh.1, learned APP for the State and Mr. Pramod Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Andhara Thari P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 66D,66E of the IT Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the private
photographs which were posted by the informant on her
Instagram account were made viral by the petitioners and other
co-accused persons named in the FIR.
4. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87056 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, who is without brief,
proceeded to argue that informant is responsible for her own act,
as she has put her photographs on Instagram account, knowingly
that all the followers will have access to the same and as such,
no case is made out under Sections 66(D) and 66(E) of the IT
Act against the petitioners.
5. Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel, has
tendered his appearance on behalf of the informant and
submitted that the informant has posted some private
photographs on her Instagram account, which were made viral
on social media by the petitioners after capturing those pictures,
attracting offence under Sections 66(D) and 66(E) of the I.T.
Act.
6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, as well as, the observation made by the learned
District Court in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, I find
that informant herself put certain objectionable photographs on
her Instagram account, knowingly that it will be watched by her
followers and as such, the petitioners cannot be held responsible
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87056 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
for the same. I am of the opinion that petitioners have, prima
facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
8. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-II, Jhanjharpur, District, Madhubani / Concerned
Court in connection with Andhara Thari P.S. Case No. 60 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
9. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found
that the petitioners are involved in some other cases, as
what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail
application, this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…