Rajasthan HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case, Bans Accused from All Social Media for One Year

The Jodhpur Bench granted bail to a 20-year-old accused of stalking and sexually harassing a minor, imposing a one-year ban on all social media platforms as a condition.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur granted bail on 21 May 2026 to Rukmandas Sharma, also known as Aditya Sharma, a 20-year-old resident of Bikaner who had been in custody since 24 February 2026. He faced charges under Sections 78(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in connection with FIR No. 41/2026 registered at Police Station Mukta Prasad Nagar, District Bikaner. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, sitting singly, allowed the bail application but attached an unusual condition: a complete ban on the use of any social media platform for one year, with an express warning that violation would result in recall of the bail order.

The Allegations and Arrest

On 22 February 2026, the father of a minor victim lodged a complaint at Police Station Mukta Prasad Nagar alleging sexual harassment, stalking, and cyber crime committed by the petitioner between 1 February 2026 and 20 February 2026. The petitioner was arrested two days later, on 24 February 2026. Following investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against him under Sections 78(2) and 79 of the BNS and Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner had one prior criminal case pending against him, registered under the BNS and the Arms Act, in which a charge-sheet had already been filed.

Arguments Before the Court

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mukul Krishna Vyas, argued that the accused had been falsely implicated, that investigation was complete, and that the petitioner was no longer required for any investigative purpose. He pointed out that apart from the oral statement of the complainant, no material had been placed on record to substantiate the charges mentioned in the FIR. He also submitted that the petitioner had been in custody since his arrest and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor, Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, and by counsel for the complainant. The complainant's side submitted that the petitioner had been harassing the victim with sexual intent, making it very difficult for her to go about her daily life, and that his conduct had psychologically endangered the victim.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Jain noted that the petitioner had remained in custody for a considerable period and that the trial proceedings were likely to take further time to conclude. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

However, given the nature of the allegations — which involved online harassment, stalking, and cyber conduct directed at a minor — the Court found it appropriate to impose conditions specifically designed to ensure the safety and well-being of the victim. The bench's concern was not merely with the risk of flight or tampering with evidence, but with the ongoing risk of contact through digital channels.

The Court's response to that concern was direct: a prohibition on the use of all social media platforms, framed with enough specificity to cover both real and fictitious identities.

Social Media Ban: Scope and Consequences

The bail order contains a condition that goes beyond the standard restrictions typically imposed in bail matters. The petitioner is restrained from using any social media platform — including Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, Threads, and ShareChat — for a period of one year.

The condition is drafted to close off circumvention. The order states that if the petitioner is found using any social media platform during the one-year period, whether in his own name or in any fictitious name, and whether through his own mobile or email ID or a fictitious one, the bail order shall be recalled.

A separate condition prohibits the petitioner from contacting the victim or her family, directly or indirectly, and from sending any message through any communication medium, including Instagram, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, or WhatsApp.

Other Bail Conditions

Beyond the social media restrictions, the Court imposed the following standard conditions:

• The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness.
• He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or repeat any criminal offence.
• He shall attend hearings before the Trial Court on dates fixed or as and when called.
• Violation of any condition shall render the bail liable to cancellation.

Order

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3937/2026 was allowed. Rukmandas Sharma @ Aditya Sharma was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the Trial Court by email.