The next time you hit “forward” on an unverified video, think twice — the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that passing on obscene or morphed content is no harmless act, and can expose the sender to arrest and custodial interrogation.Refusing anticipatory bail to an accused in a case involving circulation of a morphed obscene video of a woman, Justice Sanjay Vashisth of the high court further made it clear that the defence of just forwarding did not dilute the seriousness of the offence when dignity and reputation were at stake.An FIR in the matter was registered on February 3 under the provisions of IT Act at the Cyber Crime police station in Ropar district. The matter was placed before Justice Vashisth after the accused in the matter moved the court seeking anticipatory bail.The case has its genesis in a complaint by a widow working in a factory in Himachal Pradesh. The complainant alleged she came to know that an obscene video, purportedly depicting her, was circulating on the “mobile phones of villagers”. As a result, people in the village began to look at her in a derogatory manner.It was further alleged that the video was morphed by superimposing her image onto that of another person. The bench was told that the 22-year-old petitioner, as per the investigation in the case, forwarded the video through social media after accessing internet via another person’s hotspot.The petitioner’s counsel submitted that video was received by him from a friend, who resided in the same village and was not an accused in the present case. “The only error committed by the petitioner was, in good faith, forwarding the alleged video to the complainant’s son, who is a close friend of the petitioner.” The bench was also told that the petitioner had no role in creating, making, or editing the alleged video.After hearing rival contentions and going through the case details, Justice Vashisth asserted the allegations against the petitioner were of a serious nature, affecting the dignity and reputation of a woman. As such, the matter could not be taken lightly.“Considering that petitioner merely forwarded the video, which he had received, and had no involvement in its creation, the circumstances surrounding the generation and recording of the video require thorough investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears necessary to unearth the truth,” Justice Vashisth asserted.Dismissing the plea, the Justice Vashisth asserted substantial ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case could not be found.