The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday, 9 July 2026, granted bail to a man accused of morphing a minor girl's photograph and uploading it on social media, attaching stringent conditions that include a three-year ban on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and Snapchat. The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain at the Jodhpur bench of the High Court in a case originating from Bheem police station, Rajsamand district.

Background of the Case

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 12 February 2026, on the basis of a complaint filed by the mother of the minor victim. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident took place between 18 September and 16 October 2025. Following investigation, police arrested the accused and filed a charge sheet under Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act.

Key Conditions Imposed by the Court

Granting bail, the court directed the accused to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Crucially, the accused must submit an affidavit or undertaking before the trial court confirming he will not use any social media platform — in his own name or any fictitious identity — for a period of three years. The court warned that any violation would render the bail liable to be recalled by the trial court itself.

The accused was also directed not to contact the victim or any of her family members, directly or indirectly, until the disposal of the criminal case. Standard bail conditions — no tampering with evidence, no witness intimidation, no repeat offence — were also imposed.

What the Court Said

Justice Jain observed that the core allegation against the accused was that he had prepared a morphed photograph to defame the victim. 'The applicant-accused has misused the social media, therefore, it is appropriate to restrict use of social media at least for three years so that he may learn a lesson not to misuse any online platform,' Justice Jain said in the order.

The court further noted that since the statements of the victim (recorded as Prosecution Witness-1) and the complainant (PW-2) had already been recorded before the trial court, 'there is no chance of any influence.' The accused had been in custody since 2 April 2026 and the trial was expected to take additional time to conclude, the court noted in justifying the grant of bail.

Defence Arguments

Counsel for the accused submitted that his client had been falsely implicated, that the investigation was complete, and that continued custodial detention was unnecessary. The defence also described the accused as a young person who had a friendship with the victim and sought an opportunity for him 'to correct himself'. The defence undertook that the accused would refrain from social media use if the court found it appropriate.

The prosecution and the complainant's counsel opposed the bail plea but did not contest the fact that witness statements had already been recorded.

Significance of the Order

The ruling is notable for its use of platform-specific social media restrictions as a bail condition — an approach that courts have increasingly explored in cases involving digital offences against minors. This comes amid growing judicial concern over the misuse of online platforms to target children, particularly through morphed imagery. The accused's compliance with the social media ban will be monitored through the undertaking submitted to the trial court, which retains the power to cancel bail on any breach.