Published Apr 27, 2026 | 8:13 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 27, 2026 | 8:43 PM
Diganth was arrested in May 2025, days after the account was first spotted by concerned netizens, which led to widespread outrage.
Synopsis: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against BK Diganth, the creator of the Instagram account ‘Bangalore Metro Chicks’. The court sternly rejected the petitioner’s argument that the covertly shot, sexually suggestive content of women commuters on the metro posted by the account was comparable to CCTV footage.
The Karnataka High Court has refused to halt criminal proceedings against BK Diganth, the creator of the infamous Instagram account ‘Bangalore Metro Chicks’, which posted covertly shot, sexually suggestive content of women commuters on the Bengaluru Metro.
“You don’t leave women to be safe in a metro… You don’t leave women to be safe anywhere… You take pictures of women from the front and back and post them on that Instagram page? What kind of men are you? Nonsense…,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said during the hearing on Monday, 27 April, according to LiveLaw.
Diganth had approached the court seeking to halt the proceedings. His counsel said no offence was committed and no case was made out, and that the investigating officer was also the complainant. The court rejected this, saying such technicalities cannot be used to seek relief.
The advocate further said the content uploaded by the petitioner is similar to what CCTV cameras capture. “What CCTV cameras? Clicking women from the back and posting it is not an offence?” the court said in response.
Diganth was arrested in May 2025, days after the account was first spotted by concerned netizens, which led to widespread outrage.
“He is a 27-year-old man working in the accounts department of a private firm. He resides in Thigalarapalya and works in Murugeshpalya,” Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) Lokesh B Jagalasar had earlier told South First.
“While commuting via metro, he used to secretly videograph women passengers without their knowledge or consent and upload these voyeuristic clips to the Instagram page.”
He was charged with offences under Sections 78(2) [stalking] and 238(C) [furnishing false information] of the BNS, and 67 [posting obscene material online] of the IT Act.
At the time of its suspension, the account had over 6,000 followers, while a separate Telegram channel had over 1,000 subscribers.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
