Bulli Bai Case: Mumbai Court Discharges Vishal Jha, Says Merely Following the App Is Not an Offence

Bulli Bai Case: A Mumbai magistrate has discharged Vishal Jha, finding that merely following the Bulli Bai app or contacting co-accused did not establish a criminal role.

What Happened

A Mumbai court has discharged Vishal Sudhirkumar Jha in the Bulli Bai app case, holding that merely following the application or being in contact with co-accused does not by itself make a person liable for their alleged criminal acts.

The order was passed on October 6, 2026 by Judicial Magistrate R T Ingle at Bandra in the case of Vishal Jha v. State of Maharashtra. Bar and Bench, LawChakra and Daily Pioneer reported that it is the first discharge in the case.

The magistrate accepted the submissions made on behalf of Jha and discharged him from the charges. According to the reasoning reported by Bar and Bench, the charge-sheet did not attribute any further role to Jha beyond his alleged association with the application and contact with other accused. It did not show that he had created the app or assisted the co-accused in creating it.

LiveLaw reported that the court asked the Investigating Officer to show from the charge-sheet that Jha had shared the application. The officer could not do so. Bar and Bench similarly reported that Jha’s counsel argued that the investigating officer could not produce evidence showing that Jha had shared the app through his Twitter account, as alleged by the prosecution.

The court therefore concluded, on the material placed before it at the discharge stage, that the alleged association did not establish an attributable role in the offences.

Background & Context

The Bulli Bai case concerns an application hosted on GitHub that displayed photographs of more than 100 Muslim women for an intended online “auction”. LiveLaw reported that the photographs displayed through the application were morphed.

Mumbai Cyber Police registered the case in January 2022 after a woman found her photograph on the application, according to Daily Pioneer.

Jha was among the accused. As reported by LiveLaw and Daily Pioneer, the prosecution relied on his contact with other accused and his having followed the application. Daily Pioneer additionally reported the prosecution’s allegation that he had shared it through his Twitter account.

Jha’s defence maintained that the charge-sheet itself did not disclose an offence against him because the alleged conduct attributed to him was essentially following the application. The prosecution, according to LiveLaw, argued that Jha’s contact with the other accused reflected a shared ideology and that this association made him liable for their acts.

The magistrate did not accept that contact with co-accused, without more, was sufficient to establish liability.

The court also relied on an Allahabad High Court precedent concerning whether simply following a page on a website amounts to a punishable offence. The precedent was not identified by name in the sources reviewed.

Bar and Bench further reported that Jha and two other accused had earlier secured bail after the court observed that the older co-accused had abused their immaturity.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Judicial Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai.
• Judge: Judicial Magistrate R T Ingle.
• Date: October 6, 2026; reported on October 7, 2026.
• Case: Vishal Jha v. State of Maharashtra.
• Case No./Citation: No case number was confirmed in the sources reviewed.
• Sections/Acts Invoked: Sections 153(a), 153(b) and 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, as listed by Bar and Bench.
• Parties: Vishal Sudhirkumar Jha as applicant/accused and the State of Maharashtra as respondent.
• Counsel: Advocate Aarati Deshmukh for Jha and Additional Public Prosecutor Kalpana Hire for the State.
• Current Status: Jha has been discharged from all charges. The order does not end the prosecution against the other accused.

Why It Matters

The order is significant for the way it distinguishes between association and an attributable role in an alleged offence.

At the discharge stage, the court examined the prosecution material as it stood and considered whether it disclosed a sufficient case against Jha specifically. The magistrate found that the charge-sheet did not establish that he created the application, helped create it or shared it, and that his contact with co-accused did not independently make him liable for their alleged acts.

For law students and practitioners, the decision illustrates the importance of examining the specific material attributed to an individual accused rather than treating association with other accused as sufficient by itself. The court’s conclusion was based on the material placed before it in relation to Jha.

The order also has clear limits. It concerns Jha alone. It does not determine the merits of the wider Bulli Bai prosecution, does not amount to a finding about the conduct of the other accused, and does not establish that the underlying conduct alleged in the case did not occur.

The practical significance therefore lies in the court’s treatment of the particular allegations and material against one accused, rather than in any broader conclusion about the Bulli Bai case.

Closing

The Bandra magistrate’s October 6 order marks the first reported discharge in the Bulli Bai case. The court found that the material before it did not attribute a sufficient role to Vishal Jha beyond following the application and being in contact with co-accused.

The discharge applies to Jha alone. The prosecution against the other accused is not brought to an end by this order.