Stalking complaints sometimes name more than one person. There may be the man alleged to have followed or contacted the complainant, friends said to have tracked her location or passed on information, relatives alleged to have supported him, and people accused of creating fake profiles or accessing her accounts. Each of them naturally worries that they will be tried together. That is not how the law works. The discharge of multiple accused in a stalking case depends on each person's individual role, and courts regularly discharge persons with no specific involvement while the case continues against others. Let me explain how this works.

Start with the principle. Criminal liability is personal. Stalking under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 354D IPC) is committed by "a man" who repeatedly follows and contacts a woman to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest, or who monitors her electronic communication. The offence is personal to the person who does these acts. Others can be liable only through common intention under Section 3(5) BNS (formerly Section 34 IPC), abetment under Section 45 BNS (formerly Section 107 IPC), or criminal conspiracy under Section 61 BNS (formerly Section 120B IPC), each needing specific material.

The procedural provision reflects this individual approach. Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 239 CrPC) requires the Magistrate to discharge "the accused" where the charge "against the accused" is groundless. Each accused may apply within sixty days of supply of documents under Section 230 BNSS. The standard from Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), grave suspicion rather than mere suspicion, applies to each person separately.

Consider the different roles. The principal accused is the man alleged to have made repeated contact or monitored the complainant. A friend alleged to have delivered a message once, without knowledge of any refusal, is in a very different position. A relative who merely knew of the principal accused's feelings, without doing anything to further the conduct, has committed no offence. A person who knowingly and intentionally helped track the complainant's movements despite knowing of her refusal may face an abetment charge, but only where the material shows that knowledge and intention.

Women accused require special attention. Because Section 78 applies to "a man," a woman cannot be charged as a principal under it. She may be charged with abetment under Section 45 BNS only if the material shows instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. A woman named under Section 78 itself is entitled to have that charge set aside, though any separate offence she is alleged to have committed must be examined on its own.

Other persons may face separate offences rather than stalking. A person alleged to have hacked into the complainant's accounts may face charges under Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. A person who created a fake profile using her identity may face charges under Section 66C (identity theft) or Section 66D (cheating by personation) of that Act. A person who captured or shared private images may face voyeurism under Section 77 BNS (formerly Section 354C IPC) or charges under Section 66E of the IT Act. Each charge has its own ingredients and must be supported against the particular person.

To prepare a defence tailored to each person, arrange an accused-wise assessment through Aapka Legal Advice. An advocate will map the allegations and digital evidence against each accused, distinguish principal conduct from peripheral roles, and advise whether separate representation is wise. It is often essential that a friend or relative with no real role is not tied to the case against the principal accused.

Our panel of retired judges can support this analysis:

• Who: former High Court judges, retired Sessions Judges and retired Chief Judicial Magistrates experienced in stalking and cyber offences.
• What they review: each accused's alleged role, whether knowledge and intention for abetment are shown, and whether separate offences are properly charged.
• How it helps: their assessment guides the Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice in seeking individual relief for each accused.

The Supreme Court's approach to omnibus allegations supports role-based discharge. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), it held that general allegations against several persons, without specific roles, cannot sustain prosecution. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), it held that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do not disclose an offence against the person concerned. In complaint cases, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) requires the Magistrate to apply his mind to each accused before summoning, and the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS gives each accused a pre-cognizance hearing.

Digital evidence often decides individual roles. Call-detail records, IP logs, and device data can show who actually sent messages or accessed accounts. Such evidence must be supported by a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 65B of the Evidence Act), as held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020). Where the digital evidence links only one person, others named without such evidence have a strong ground for discharge.

Your discharge applications should be structured person by person. Each should state what the complainant's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS say about that person specifically, whether any call records, messages, or device data link that person to the conduct, and what role, if any, is alleged. A chart listing each communication or act and the person said to be responsible, with the supporting evidence, helps the Magistrate see who is genuinely implicated.

Certain limits apply equally to all accused. The complainant's character is irrelevant. Defence documents are generally excluded at the charge stage, following State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005), though sterling material withheld by the police may be summoned under Section 94 BNSS, as recognised in Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2018). Any charge under Section 66A of the IT Act is invalid for every accused, following Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). No accused should contact the complainant or witnesses.

Where the principal accused is a juvenile, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 applies, and his case proceeds before the Juvenile Justice Board, separately from any adult co-accused. Where the complainant is under eighteen, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 may apply, including Section 11 on sexual harassment of a child, and each accused's role must be assessed under its provisions.

Bail is assessed individually. The Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) safeguards apply, and a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS should ordinarily precede arrest. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS can be sought separately, and persons with peripheral roles often obtain it readily. If discharge is refused to certain accused, each may file a revision under Section 438 BNSS (formerly Section 397 CrPC), as confirmed in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. (2021), and the High Court may quash under Section 528 BNSS and Articles 226 and 227. These remedies protect rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Further recourse by persons wrongly implicated should be pursued only after the proceedings end in their favour. Options include proceedings under Section 217 BNS (formerly Section 182 IPC), Section 248 BNS (formerly Section 211 IPC), perjury through Section 379 BNSS, criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS, and a civil suit for malicious prosecution.

To conclude, yes, the discharge of multiple accused in a stalking case can and often does differ according to each person's role. Only the man who committed the acts described in Section 78 BNS is the principal. Others may be liable only through proven abetment, common intention, or separate cyber offences, and women cannot be principals under Section 78. Build each application person by person, rely on digital evidence showing who did what, and file within sixty days. With experienced criminal lawyers and retired judges guiding you, a role-wise strategy can secure the discharge of multiple accused in a stalking case who had no real part in the conduct alleged. This is general legal information, and your specific facts should be reviewed by a qualified advocate.