Mumbai: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, 12th Court, Bandra, has discharged an accused in the Bullibai App case after finding that the only role attributed to him was that he followed the app and was in contact with a co-accused. Holding that "mere following the App will not constitute the offence," the court said no charge could be framed against him.
The order was passed by Judge R.T. Ingle on 06.10.2026 on a discharge application filed by Vishal Sudhirkumar Jha in Court Case No. 513/PW/2022. The charge-sheet invokes Sections 153(a), 153(b), 295(a), 354(d), 509, 500, 120(b) and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer opposed the application.
According to the prosecution, the app was created by co-accused Niraj Bishnoi and contained photographs of over 100 Muslim women put up for "auction". It was launched on github.com. A friend of the informant opened the app and saw the informant's photograph, then informed her. The informant saw that the co-accused, including the applicant, had shared the app on their Twitter accounts and lodged an FIR with the Cyber Police, which registered C.R. No. 01/2022.
The applicant argued that, even if the charge-sheet is read as it stands, no offence is made out, since the only allegation is that he followed the app. His advocate relied on Mohd. Imran Kazi v. State of U.P., MANU/UP/4270/2023 (Allahabad High Court), and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 651. The court noted that the Allahabad High Court held that "only following" is not an offence under the I.T. Act, and that the Supreme Court, with reference to Section 227 CrPC, held that a court can frame a charge where there is sufficient ground to proceed and is bound to discharge the accused where there is not.
The Investigating Officer submitted that the accused were in contact with each other and shared an ideology, and that while one accused created the app, the others not only followed it but also shared it on Twitter. He said they were therefore also liable for prosecution.
After going through the charge-sheet and documents, and verifying personally with the Investigating Officer who was present at the hearing, the court found that the officer could not show that the applicant had shared the app on Twitter as alleged by the informant. The app was removed very soon after its launch, and there was no record that the applicant shared it on his Twitter handle. The only role attributed to him was therefore that he followed the app and was in contact with the co-accused. The court held that, in view of the Allahabad High Court's ruling that following a page on a website is not an offence, following the app is not an offence.
On the allegation of contact with the co-accused, the court held that it does not ipso facto make him liable for the act of the co-accused. The connection showed only that they were familiar with each other, and nothing was shared about the present crime. The court said the applicant may have followed the app because of this familiarity, but nothing in the charge-sheet showed that he created it or helped in creating it. It added that there was no allegation that he shared any photographs of Muslim women with the main accused.
Holding that no charge could be framed, the court allowed the application and discharged the applicant of all the offences under the IPC and the IT Act in the charge-sheet.
Case Title: Vishal Sudhirkumar Jha vs. State of Maharashtra, Court Case No. 513/PW/2022 (Order below Exh. 23)
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
