CASE NAME	Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha, 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 52
CITATION	2017 SCC OnLine Ori 52
COURT	Orissa High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice D.P. Choudhury
PETITIONER	Kalandi Charan Lenka
RESPONDENT	State of Odisha
DECIDED ON	16th January 2017

INTRODUCTION

The Orissa High Court considered grave claims of defamation and cyberbullying in the 2017 Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha case. The victim, a college student, experienced a string of upsetting events, such as getting pornographic texts on both her father’s and her own phones, anonymous letters filled with profanity, and disparaging flyers shown at her schools. She suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the harassment intensifying when a phony Facebook account was made in her name and uploaded distorted naked photos. 

The victim’s family knew Kalandi Charan Lenka, the accused who had previously proposed marriage to her, and he was arrested as a result of the investigation. Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 509 (insulting a woman’s modesty), 469 (forgery for the purpose of harming reputation), and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections 66C (identity theft) and 67 (publishing obscene material) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were among the charges brought against him by the prosecution. 

The High Court rejected the accused’s request for bail, pointing out the gravity of the crimes and the possible harm to the victim’s image and dignity. The court underlined the necessity of taking strong action against cyber crimes, especially those that attack the privacy and modesty of women. This case demonstrates how the courts acknowledge the serious psychological and reputational damage that cyberbullying causes and how crucial it is to enforce strict laws to shield people from such crimes. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

A female student at the Pattamundai Women’s College in Pattamundai serves as the informant. Among other things, it is said that her father has three daughters, the first of whom is mentally challenged and the second of whom is the informant. Unknown pornographic texts that impersonated the victim girl appeared on her mobile while she was a college student. Prior to this, obscene communications that negatively impacted the informant’s character had also arrived on her father’s cell phone from an unidentified mobile number. After reading the message, her father felt guilty and inquired about the situation from the informant-victim. Thus, the victim woman’s exposure to these offensive statements caused emotional distress. Then, in 2015 and 2016, the victim girl’s father received written letters that used foul language and implied her reputation. These letters contained sexual remarks and were sent to disparage the victim girl’s character. In addition to having an impact on the victim girl’s character, the messages encouraged the other male members to engage in sexual relations with her. 

In addition to this, it is also reported, among other things, that the victim girl had to leave her place of study because a brochure criticizing her character was posted on the wall of the hostel where she was staying. However, the criminal remembered to pursue her. The printed pamphlets that contained sexual remarks against the victim girl were affixed to the walls of every school where she attended. Ultimately, a phony Facebook account was made in the victim girl’s name, and the victim girl’s altered nude photos were posted there with the goal of insulting her modesty. In order to pursue legal action against the offender, the victim girl was then required to notify the police in writing. 

In order to find the mobile number and IMEI number, the Crime Branch’s Cyber Cell contacted many service providers and interviewed several witnesses during the course of the inquiry. In accordance with Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has been examined. She claimed that the petitioner, who was well acquainted with the complainant’s family, had proposed to her and, when the marriage could not be consummated, he suspected him of sending pornographic letters and scandalous correspondence and publishing pamphlets that attributed the victim girl’s character. The petitioner has demonstrated his aim to intimidate the victim girl in order to take advantage of her sexually by sending her such offensive and vulgar emails and creating a phony Facebook account in her name. Therefore, after gathering evidence, the Crime Branch’s Cyber Cell discovered that the petitioner was responsible for these kinds of serious crimes. After that, the petitioner was taken into custody and sent to court. The inquiry is ongoing, according to the prosecution.

ISSUES RAISED

• Do the accused’s actions—which included making a phony social media account, sharing altered naked photos, and sending offensive messages—qualify as crimes under the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 469 (forgery for harming reputation), 509 (insulting modesty), and 66C and 67 of the IT Act respectively?
• Given the seriousness of the offenses and their effects on society, did the accused’s cyberbullying and defamation breach the victim’s right to privacy, dignity, and reputation enough to deny them bail?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments from petitioner

• The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney said that he was in love with the victim girl and that he is an innocent person. He asserts that the victim girl’s other boy buddy must have done the claimed offense. He further argued that all offenses are subject to bail, with the exception of those under Sections 506 IPC and 67-A of the Information Technology Act. 
• Since the petitioner has been detained for the past two months, a lenient stance may be adopted, allowing the petitioner to be released on bail with any conditions that are judged appropriate and suitable. 

Arguments from respondent

• • Mr. Tripathy was informed that Additional Standing Counsel strongly opposed the bail, arguing that the victim girl had been defamed not only by the petitioner’s overt actions but also by the petitioner’s use of an electronic device to harass her sexually and intimidate her in order to force her to surrender to the petitioner’s plan. 

• Additionally, he argued that the Crime Branch’s Cyber Cell had gathered sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court should not grant the petitioner bail since it is a cybercrime that threatens women’s dignity and society.

JUDGMENT

Given the prescribed punishment for the prima facie identified offense, the majority of the charges alleged by the prosecution are bailable. Considering the nature of the evidence discussed, the absence of the petitioner’s criminal history, and the duration of his custody, a lenient approach is adopted to grant him bail. However, the dignity of women, as previously noted, must be considered, as stalking, the creation of fraudulent Facebook accounts, and obscene representations, including altered nude images, constitute societal threats and infringe upon women’s rights.

Consequently, considering the committed conduct, the prima facie offense identified against the petitioner, and the necessity to uphold the dignity and rights of the victim woman, the petitioner should be granted bail under stringent restrictions. So, let the petitioner be released on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties each, out of which one surety should be one of his parents, for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai in G.R. Case No.225 of 2015 arising out of Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.07 of 2016 on conditions that (i) he would appear before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday at 10.00 A.M. till Final Form is submitted and also would be available to the I.O. as and when required for the purpose of further investigation, if any, after submission of Final Form; (ii) He would not commit any offence including the offence through the electronic form while on bail; (iii) He would not induce or threaten the victim woman or her parents or any prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly through any manner; and (iv) He would also not visit the town of Pattamundai where the victim or her family members reside and place where the victim is studying or working except in the occasion when he would have to appear before the I.O. or before the Court in seisin of the matter till submission of Final Form and in the event of filing of charge-sheet till conclusion of the trial.

CONCLUSION

The case of Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha highlights the grave repercussions of cyber harassment and its capacity to inflict considerable emotional and reputational damage on the victim. The defendant’s conduct, which encompasses the establishment of a fraudulent Facebook account, the dissemination of altered nude images, and the transmission of lewd messages, represents a blatant infringement of the victim’s dignity and privacy. The charges were filed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act of 2000, indicating the gravity of the offenses committed. These activities inflicted significant psychological harm on the victim and tarnished her character and integrity, infringing upon her fundamental rights.

The court’s denial of bail to the defendant underscores the severity of cyber crimes, especially those that assault women’s dignity and reputation. The refusal of bail was warranted, given the severity of the acts and the possible enduring impact on the victim. This case underscores the necessity for rigorous legal frameworks to combat cyber harassment, particularly at a time when technology may be readily misused to inflict harm on persons, especially women. The court’s focus on safeguarding privacy and dignity underscores the judiciary’s dedication to delivering justice for victims of these offenses.

In conclusion, the case underscores the growing susceptibility of persons to cyber crimes and the necessity for enhanced enforcement of legislation to safeguard against such acts. The judiciary’s denial of bail underscores the gravity of online harassment and the imperative to enforce laws that protect individual dignity and reputation. This case also serves as a reminder for society to remain alert in combating cybercrime and ensuring accountability for those who partake in such detrimental actions. It underscores the significance of legal safeguards in the digital era and the necessity for ongoing endeavors to protect the rights and safety of persons.