[Bulli Bai app case] "Committed serious acts defaming womanhood:" Why three accused were denied bail

While rejecting bail to the three accused in the Bulli Bai case, a Mumbai Court on Thursday opined that merely because they were not creators of the app, they could not be termed as innocent..The order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra Komalsing Rajput stated,"...they were arrested for collection of evidence relating to non-bailable offence and hence, their arrest is not in violation of any law. They found to be committed serious acts defaming womanhood. The larger interest of society is at stake, therefore, their personal liberty can be said to be curtailed without following due process of law.".The three accused - Bangalore student Vishal Jha and Uttarakhand residents Shweta Singh and Mayank Rawat - were refused bail on Thursday. The detailed common order, a copy of which is with Bar & Bench, was made available today. .The Magistrate observed that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that the hardware and other data were of a wider amplitude. He also noted that the first information report (FIR) had been lodged a few days back and the data obtained was required to be scrutinized with the help of experts.The Magistrate also noted that the accused persons were residents of other States and if they did not co-operate for interrogation, then it would hamper the investigation. "They are having sufficient knowledge of computer and technical aspects relating to social media platforms. If they never turned up either for further investigation or trial it will cause prejudice to the investigation agency and victims," the order rejecting bail stated..The judge also acknowledged that while the accused persons were of tender age having fundamental rights, the same are subject to reasonable restrictions..The three accused had pointed out in their petitions that they had been falsely implicated in the case as they had not committed any offence and had no criminal antecedents whatsoever.Jha and Rawat who have tested COVID-19 positive, pointed out that they are innocent, belonged to respected families and are excelling in academics. Meanwhile, Singh argued that belonging to a Dalit family, she was an orphan and was suffering from financial constraints. All accused pointed out that they had been thoroughly interrogated, their devices had been seized and that there was no possible way for them to tamper with the evidence or devices. .Meanwhile the Mumbai Police had opposed their applications stressing on the fact that the custody of the accused was required for an in depth probe into the case. It stated that a joint interrogation with the accused in the Sulli Deals case was required..In the backdrop of the allegations, the Magistrate noted the prima facie involvement of the accused in the case. "The disputed fact is only in respect of exact role played by them, their involvement is not in serious dispute", the Magistrate observed. The Magistrate stated that even if it is presumed that applicant persons are just followers or subscribers, at this stage, it cannot be said that they are innocent..Advocate Shivam Deshmukh appeared for Jha and Advocate Sandeep Sherkhane appeared for Rawat.