Man in India's Himachal Pradesh uploads wife's nude photos on Facebook; he wanted a scooter from her father!

• The court observed that posting and uploading nude photographs of a spouse in public domain amounts to the betrayal of mutual trust and confidence.

Taking serious note of the gravity of the offence and its physical and psychological impact, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in India has dismissed an anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of uploading obscene photographs and videos of his wife on social media in her name.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur passed this order on Tuesday on the petition of Abhishek Mangla for grant of anticipatory bail.

Mangla's wife had registered a police complaint that he clicked her nude photographs on his mobile and threatened her to ask her father to provide a scooter to him, else he would post her nude photographs on the internet.
On her resistance, he beat her and uploaded the photographs on social media, including Facebook, by creating a fake account in her name.

While dismissing the bail, the court observed that "the relationship of husband and wife is a privileged institution of marriage that inspires trust and confidence which leads to complete surrender of spouses to each other".

"This relation of mutual trust, faith and confidence creates sense of security and sometimes even more than parents and children."

The court observed that posting and uploading nude photographs of a spouse, particularly of the wife, in public domain amounts to betray of the mutual trust and confidence that marital relations imply.

"It is stripping off a woman in public by the husband himself who is not only supposed but duly bound to protect her. It is not only serious but a heinous crime. Its impact on soul, mind and physical health of the victim is beyond imagination," said the judge.

The court also observed that extraordinary provision of anticipatory bail is not framed to benefit such offenders, particularly a husband who is accused of an offence amounting to stripping off his wife in public and, therefore, the court does not find it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail.