The Karnataka High Court has refused to grant bail to four individuals accused of posting defamatory, obscene, vulgar and intimidating content on social media targeting Vijayalakshmi, wife of Kannada actor Darshan, observing that digital platforms cannot be permitted to become instruments of harassment, intimidation or character assassination.
The single-judge Bench of Justice S Rachaiah dismissed separate bail petitions filed by Chandrashekar B, Nithin GB, Prashanth Kareepa Talavar and Ningaraj Gulappa, holding that the allegations disclosed a serious misuse of social media platforms and warranted continued investigation.
The case arose from allegations that the accused used different social media accounts to publish offensive, abusive and derogatory comments against the complainant. The Court examined the nature of the allegations and emphasised that while freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the right is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be exercised in a manner that infringes upon the dignity, reputation, personal liberty and privacy of another individual.
While considering the case of Chandrashekar B, who allegedly operated an Instagram account under the name “Chandra Shekhar,” the Court noted that the comments attributed to him contained vulgar references relating to sexual assault and amounted to intimidation and harassment. Justice Rachaiah observed that the language allegedly used against the complainant reflected a disturbing attitude towards women and demonstrated how public platforms could be misused to target individuals.
The single-judge Bench further observed that social media platforms were intended to facilitate communication, public interaction and constructive exchange of ideas. However, they were increasingly being misused by individuals who exceeded the permissible limits of free speech and engaged in conduct that harmed the rights and dignity of others.
The Court stressed that false, baseless, frivolous, defamatory and intimidating content should be effectively regulated by the platforms themselves and, where necessary, constitutional courts would intervene to safeguard fundamental rights.
Rejecting the bail plea of Nithin GB, who allegedly operated the Instagram account “nithin_gb_official”, the Court reiterated that social media cannot be used as a shield for unlawful conduct. It observed that certain users exploit digital platforms to disseminate abusive and objectionable material under the guise of exercising free speech, thereby causing serious harm to affected individuals.
In relation to Prashanth Kareepa Talavar, who allegedly operated an Instagram account named “halakat_randimunde”, the Court noted that he had allegedly posted vulgar and derogatory comments on December 21, 2025, when Vijayalakshmi was participating in promotional activities for the Kannada film “The Devil”.
The Court found the alleged remarks to be highly offensive and unacceptable, observing that the manner in which the complainant was addressed reflected the accused’s attitude towards women and could not be ignored while considering his request for bail.
With respect to Ningaraj Gulappa, who allegedly used a Facebook account under the name “Prince Chinna,” the Court recorded that he had allegedly posted derogatory comments affecting the complainant’s dignity and peaceful life. The Bench further noted that his mobile phone had been seized during the investigation and that preliminary material collected by the investigating agency prima facie indicated his involvement in the alleged offences.
Emphasising the role of constitutional courts in protecting individual rights, Justice Rachaiah observed that courts could not remain passive spectators when personal liberty, dignity and reputation were threatened through online abuse and harassment. The Court held that whenever judicial intervention became necessary, courts would act to protect the rights and interests guaranteed under the Constitution.
Taking into account the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the seriousness of the alleged conduct and the broader implications of online harassment, the High Court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail at this stage and accordingly dismissed all four petitions.
The post Karnataka High Court denies bail to four accused of posting defamatory content targeting actor Darshan’s wife appeared first on India Legal.