Bihar Police book 120 accounts for revealing Jamui minor's identity

Bihar Police have registered FIRs against operators of 120 social media accounts for allegedly revealing a minor girl's identity and circulating her video online. Police warned that such sharing is punishable under the POCSO Act, IT Act and Juvenile Justice and Penal Code. The video, from Jamui, relates to a September 19 incident involving harassment of a class 10 girl. An SIT led by SDPO Deepti Monali identified about seven perpetrators and arrested three, all minors.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 22 Sept 2026, 11:03 am IST

Source

Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗

#bihar police#jamui#pocso act#social media#minor safety

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

FIRs registered against 120 social media account operators for revealing a minor girl's identity — Attributed to Bihar Police in the source; figure appears in source text
Revealing a minor's identity under POCSO Section 23 carries 6 months to 1 year imprisonment, fine, or both — Attributed to an unnamed police officer speaking to reporters on Tuesday
Three arrested suspects are minors; around seven perpetrators identified via video analysis; SIT led by SDPO Deepti Monali — Attributed to police in the source; individual names and roles as given
Victims traced using vehicle registration number visible in the clip; no complaint filed till Sunday — Directly quoted to Jamui SP Bishwajeet Dayal
Rahul Gandhi demanded POCSO prosecution and questioned the state BJP government — Attributed to a post on X by the Congress leader; quotes reproduced from source

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Legal Analyst

This is an unusual but legally coherent move: FIRs have gone not only against the alleged perpetrators but against 120 social media accounts that spread the victim's identity. Under Section 23 of the POCSO Act, disclosing a minor victim's identity is a standalone offence — meaning those who merely shared the clip can be liable even though they played no part in the original incident. At the same time, because three of those arrested were found to be minors, the case moves into the Juvenile Justice framework, where the procedure and sentencing limits are distinct.

Police cited POCSO Section 23, under which revealing a minor victim's name, face or identifying details can attract six months to one year in prison, a fine, or both.
The registration of a case suo motu on the basis of the viral video, before any complaint was filed, illustrates that police can investigate cognisable sexual offences without waiting for a victim complaint.
Since three accused are minors, their matter would go before the juvenile justice machinery, and their identities are also legally protected — creating a confidentiality question on both sides.
Enforcing action against 120 accounts is operationally hard: identifying account holders, establishing intent, and deciding whether resharing or forwarding attracts the same liability are questions courts will have to settle.
Police say takedown steps for the video have been initiated under the IT framework, which squarely engages the balance between free expression and a victim's dignity and privacy rights.

What to watch — Watch how many of the 120 FIRs actually convert into chargesheets, how quickly platforms comply with takedown directions, and whether any of the remaining identified suspects are adults.

The story does not establish which specific sections were invoked against which account holders, whether those operators have been identified, or the ages of the remaining suspects — and none of the allegations has been tested in court.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 4 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

A video from Jamui, Bihar, showing a class 10 girl being harassed and sexually assaulted and her male friend beaten by a group of local youths on the pretext of "moral policing", went viral and triggered nationwide outrage. The incident took place on September 19 when the two were returning from coaching classes. Bihar Police took suo motu cognizance, traced the victims via the vehicle registration number visible in the clip, and formed an SIT. Alongside the probe, police have now booked 120 social media account operators for circulating the video and revealing the minor victim's identity.

Key facts

Bihar Police registered FIRs against operators of 120 social media accounts for revealing a minor girl's identity and circulating her video.
The Jamui incident took place on September 19; the footage went viral later, sparking nationwide outrage.
Police said sharing such videos is punishable under the POCSO Act, the IT Act and the Juvenile Justice and Penal Code.
Section 23 of the POCSO Act prohibits revealing the identity of a minor; violation carries imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year, a fine, or both.
A Special Investigation Team led by female SDPO Deepti Monali identified around seven perpetrators through video analysis and arrested three, all identified as minors.
The victims were a class 10 girl and her male friend, intercepted near Madwa hillock on the Jamui-Lakhisarai road after leaving coaching classes on a motorbike.
The attackers filmed the ordeal on a mobile phone and threatened to upload it online if the victims reported the incident.
Jamui Police registered an FIR under the POCSO Act and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; steps were initiated for takedown of the video.

Timeline

September 19A class 10 girl and her male friend, returning from tuition in Jamui town, are intercepted near Madwa hillock; the boy is beaten and the girl sexually assaulted, and the act is filmed.
Till Sunday (two days after the incident)No complaint was filed by either victim, according to Jamui SP Bishwajeet Dayal.
Day the video went viralBihar Police take suo motu cognizance, trace the victims using the vehicle registration number in the clip, and register an FIR under POCSO and BNS; an SIT is formed.
TuesdayA police officer tells reporters about Section 23 POCSO penalties; Bihar Police issue a public appeal on X and FIRs are registered against 120 social media accounts.

Who has a stake

The minor victims (class 10 girl and her male friend) — Physical safety, dignity and anonymity; their identity was exposed through mass circulation of the video.
Bihar Police / Jamui Police — Accountability for delayed detection, victim identification, arrests, video takedown and enforcement against online circulation.
SIT under SDPO Deepti Monali — Tasked with tracking the roughly seven perpetrators; three minors arrested so far.
Operators of the 120 social media accounts — Face FIRs and possible imprisonment, fine or both under POCSO Section 23, the IT Act and Juvenile Justice provisions.
Jamui SP Bishwajeet Dayal — Public explanation of the case: no complaint was received until the video went viral.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi — Politically framed the case, demanding POCSO prosecution and questioning the state BJP government on women's safety.

Why it matters

The case shows how the viral circulation of abuse footage becomes a second offence against the victim, and how police are now treating ordinary resharers as accused under POCSO Section 23. It also exposes gaps in reporting: the crime surfaced only because the video spread, not because a complaint was filed. With the alleged perpetrators themselves minors, the case sits at the intersection of child protection law, juvenile justice and online content regulation.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Section 23 of the POCSO Act bars disclosure of a child victim's identity; penalty is 6 months to 1 year imprisonment, fine, or both.
FIRs in the Jamui case were registered under the POCSO Act and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Bihar Police booked 120 social media account operators for circulating the video and revealing the minor's identity.
The SIT was led by Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Deepti Monali; Jamui SP is Bishwajeet Dayal.
Police cited three laws for such online sharing: POCSO Act, IT Act, and Juvenile Justice and Penal Code.
Police acted through suo motu cognizance and traced victims using the vehicle registration number in the viral clip.

Mains framing

The Jamui case illustrates three overlapping failures. First, a crime of so-called 'moral policing' escalated into sexual assault, with filming used as a tool of intimidation to deter reporting — which worked, since no complaint reached the police for two days. Second, the video's virality, though it triggered police action and nationwide outrage, simultaneously destroyed the child victim's anonymity, prompting FIRs against 120 account operators under POCSO Section 23, the IT Act and juvenile justice provisions. Third, with around seven perpetrators identified and the three arrested all being minors, the case raises questions about peer-group violence and the juvenile justice framework's response. The way forward suggested by the source's own facts lies in suo motu police cognizance, forensic video analysis and SIT-led investigation, rapid takedown of offending content, and sustained public messaging that resharing such footage is itself a punishable offence — while the political response, including Rahul Gandhi's demand for POCSO prosecution and his framing of the episode as patriarchy rather than culture, underlines that deterrence must be social as well as legal.

Key terms

POCSO Act: The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences law; its Section 23 prohibits revealing a minor victim's identity.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): India's penal code under which relevant sections of the Jamui FIR were registered.
Special Investigation Team (SIT): A dedicated police team formed to track the Jamui perpetrators, headed by SDPO Deepti Monali.
Suo motu cognizance: Police or a court acting on its own initiative without a complaint — how Bihar Police opened the Jamui case.
SDPO: Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the rank of the officer leading the Jamui SIT.
Moral policing: Self-appointed enforcement of social conduct by private groups; the pretext used to intercept the two students.

Practice questions

Discuss how Section 23 of the POCSO Act balances press and public speech against a child victim's right to anonymity, in light of FIRs against 120 social media accounts in the Jamui case.
The Jamui incident came to light only after a video went viral. Examine what this reveals about barriers to reporting sexual offences and the role of suo motu police action.
When alleged perpetrators of a sexual offence are themselves minors, what challenges arise in reconciling the POCSO Act with the juvenile justice framework?

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyTwo infants die in fire at Adilabad RIMS newborn care unit →

← All stories