Karnataka HC Rejects Bail for Four Accused Who Posted Derogatory Comments Against Film Actor's Wife on Social Media

Justice S. Rachaiah dismissed four separate bail petitions arising from Crime No. 69/2025, holding that vulgar social media comments targeting a woman's dignity warranted rejection to send a deterrent message to those who misuse online platforms.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 29 May 2026, rejected bail applications filed by four accused persons charged in connection with derogatory social media comments posted against the wife of a prominent Kannada film actor. Justice S. Rachaiah, sitting singly, dismissed all four criminal petitions — filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — in Crime No. 69/2025 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City. The court held that using social media as a tool for harassment and intimidation through filthy and abusive language directed at a woman is unpardonable, and that rejecting bail was necessary to deter such conduct and protect women's dignity.

The Incident and the Charges

The complainant is the wife of an eminent film actor. Her husband's film was released on 11 December 2025. On 21 December 2025, the complainant participated in a promotional programme at Davangere and made certain statements. According to the prosecution, those statements were misinterpreted, and derogatory comments began appearing on social media platforms posted by various persons. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City, which registered Crime No. 69/2025 and commenced investigation. The investigation was stated to be in progress at the time of the bail hearings.

The four accused were charged under Section 67 and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and under Sections 351(3), 352, 75(3), 351(2), and 79 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The cases were pending before the 45th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

The four petitioners were: Sri. Nithin G.B. (accused No. 2, aged 31, resident of Davangere), Sri. Chandrashekar B. (accused No. 1, aged 46, resident of Basavanahalu, Davangere), Sri. Prashanth Kareepa Talavar (accused No. 3, aged 22, resident of Yaliwal, Dharwad), and Sri. Ningaraj Gulappa Talavar (accused No. 4, aged 25, resident of Yaliwal, Dharwad). All four were represented by Sri. Manoj S.N., Advocate. The State was represented by Smt. Pushpalatha B., Additional Special Public Prosecutor.

Arguments Raised by the Accused

Counsel for the petitioners advanced broadly similar arguments across all four petitions. The primary contention was that the accused had merely posted comments on an already existing social media post and had not uploaded any content, created any material, or disseminated any obscene matter independently.

On the specific charge under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, counsel argued that the provision requires publication or transmission of obscene material by the accused. Posting a comment on an existing post, without uploading or disseminating any obscene material, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of that provision. This argument was pressed in the petitions filed by accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4.

In the petition filed by accused No. 2, Nithin G.B., counsel submitted that the petitioner had no intention to disrespect any individual and did not know the consequences of commenting on a post that was already circulating on social media. It was also submitted that he is the earning member of his family, a permanent resident of Davangere, and would abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The Additional Special Public Prosecutor opposed all four petitions, submitting that the accused had committed heinous offences by making derogatory comments against the complainant. She urged that cyber crime had become a menace to society and that persons who use devices to trouble innocent citizens must be regulated. She further submitted that the comments were obnoxious, caused mental agony, and would cause irreparable injury, and that rejection was warranted in the interest of society at large.

What the Court Found About Each Accused

Justice Rachaiah examined the averments of the remand applications for each accused and made specific findings about their conduct.

Accused No. 2, Nithin G.B., was found to be operating an Instagram account in the name “nithin_gb_official” from which he made a derogatory comment against the complainant that directly affected her dignity.

Accused No. 1, Chandrashekar B., operated an Instagram account in the name “Chandra Shekhar”. The court found that his comments on social media amounted to intimidation and harassment, and that the vulgar language used related to sexual assault. The court observed that the manner in which he utilised a public platform to make derogatory comments showed his mentality towards women at large.

Accused No. 3, Prashanth Kareepa Talavar, operated an Instagram account in the name “halakat_randimunde”. On 21 December 2025, the day of the Davangere programme promoting the Kannada film The Devil, the petitioner commented through his account in vulgar language which the court noted was not fit to be reproduced in the order. The court described such comments against a woman as ridiculous and unpardonable, and said the manner of commenting indicated the petitioner's mentality towards women.

Accused No. 4, Ningaraj Gulappa Talavar, operated a Facebook account in the name “Prince Chinna”. The court found that his derogatory comment directly affected the complainant's decent life. The mobile phone of this accused had been seized by the police, and preliminary investigation indicated that the petitioner had committed a heinous offence and disreputed the character of the complainant.

The Court's Reasoning on Social Media and Women's Rights

Across all four judgments, Justice Rachaiah set out a consistent line of reasoning. The court acknowledged that social media is designed to facilitate communication and allow individuals to express ideas and share views that contribute to the development of the nation. It also acknowledged that freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution of India.

However, the court held that every such right carries reasonable restrictions. Exceeding those restrictions or invading the personal liberty of another person constitutes an offence to be dealt with in accordance with law. The court observed that some persons misuse the liberty of speech and expression by acting beyond acceptable norms of society.

The court stated that social media platforms themselves carry a responsibility to maintain decorum and instil confidence in citizens. Persons making comments must maintain public peace and order. Where baseless, false, frivolous, and intimidating messages are not regulated by the platform, courts are required to step in to secure the confidence of citizens and protect fundamental rights.

On the specific question of women's dignity, the court held that the self-esteem and dignity of a woman must be protected by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of constitutional courts. It reasoned that once confidence is instilled in the minds of women that courts stand ready to protect their fundamental rights and interests, they can live in society peacefully, without fear or hesitation.

The court also stated that courts are not mute spectators and that whenever interference is required, courts will step in without hesitation to safeguard the rights and interests of individuals or the public guaranteed under the Constitution.

On the argument that merely commenting on an existing post does not attract Section 67 of the IT Act, the court did not accept the defence as a ground for bail, holding that the derogatory words used must be dealt with strictly and that rejecting bail was appropriate to send a strong message to deter such conduct and regulate the menace in society.

Order

All four criminal petitions were rejected. Criminal Petition No. 1890 of 2026 filed by Nithin G.B. (accused No. 2) was rejected by order dated 29 May 2026. The petitions filed by Chandrashekar B. (accused No. 1), Prashanth Kareepa Talavar (accused No. 3), and Ningaraj Gulappa Talavar (accused No. 4) in Crime No. 69/2025 were similarly rejected on the same date. All four matters remain pending before the 45th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, with investigation stated to be in progress.