Mere Photography of a Woman Not Stalking: High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Case Name

Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr

Date of Order / Judgment

The anticipatory bail order was passed on 14 August 2025 by Justice Rakesh Kainthla .

Summary of the Case

Facts: The petitioner, a businessman, was accused of stalking after allegedly photographing a woman—who was the wife of a regional pollution control officer—as part of an intimidation attempt, along with allegedly trying to hit the officer’s vehicle in October 2024 following regulatory action against his business .

An FIR was filed under Sections 221 (obstructing a public servant), 224 (threat of injury to a public servant), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and Section 78 (stalking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Among these, only the stalking charge under Section 78 was non-bailable, prompting the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail .

The petitioner denied all allegations and counter-accused the official of demanding bribes. The State argued there were call detail records showing the petitioner was following the officer and his wife, and opposed bail, suggesting it would impede investigation .

Observations of the High Court

Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that, even accepting the allegations at face value, the offence of stalking under Section 78 BNS was not made out. The statutory definition requires repeated following or contacting to foster personal interaction despite disinterest, or monitoring online activity—none of which were alleged here. The only allegation was that the petitioner took photographs of the informant’s wife, which alone did not satisfy the criteria for stalking .

Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, noting that the ingredients for stalking were not prima facie established, and there was no necessity for custodial interrogation.