Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another, 2025
It reinforced the view that the mere act of photography, without evidence of repeated contact or monitoring, does not meet the threshold for stalking.
Judgement Details
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
19 August 2025
Judges
Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner, Krishan Kumar Kasana, is an industrialist.
-
An FIR was registered against him by a regional officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board.
-
The petitioner followed the informant’s car and attempted to hit it.
-
The petitioner intimidated the officer by allegedly filming and taking photographs of the officer’s wife.
-
These acts were allegedly done to coerce the officer into giving favorable treatment following action against the petitioner for environmental law violations.
-
The petitioner denied these allegations and claimed the informant had demanded a bribe earlier.
-
The FIR was a counterblast, lodged after the petitioner filed a complaint against the officer.
Issues
-
Whether the act of photographing the informant’s wife constitutes “stalking” under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
-
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in light of the serious allegations including obstruction, criminal intimidation, and stalking?
-
Whether the prima facie evidence supported the charges made in the FIR?
Held
-
The act of taking photographs, in isolation, does not constitute stalking under the statutory definition.
-
The ingredients necessary to invoke Section 78 were not satisfied.
-
The Anticipatory bail was appropriate given the circumstances, pending investigation.
Analysis
-
The Court applied a strict interpretation of Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
-
It reinforced the view that the mere act of photography, without evidence of repeated contact or monitoring, does not meet the threshold for stalking.
-
This judgment reflects judicial caution against criminalizing conduct without sufficient legal basis.
-
It emphasizes individual liberty and presumption of innocence in the pre-trial stage.
-
The highlights the changing framework under the new BNS 2023, and the court’s role in interpreting newly codified offences.
-
The Court also appeared mindful of the possibility of misuse of legal provisions in personal or professional disputes.