Updated: August 2026 | Reading Time: 14 minutes
Introduction
Technology-facilitated crimes against women have emerged as one of the most alarming trends in India’s public safety landscape. The proliferation of smartphones, hidden cameras, and artificial intelligence tools has weaponized technology against women in public spaces—on metro trains, buses, streets, shopping malls, and even within the privacy of dressing rooms.
India recorded a 118.4% increase in online crimes against women from 2020 to 2024, according to government data. The National Cybercrime Reporting Portal registered 46,58,830 cases of cybercrime in the last three years, with a significant rise in technology-facilitated sexual harassment, voyeurism, and AI-enabled image abuse targeting women.
Authored by Adv. Shoeb Hakim—a criminal defence, AML, digital forensics, and cybercrime specialist who has trained police since 1995—this comprehensive guide examines technology-facilitated crimes against women in public spaces, notable cases from 2025-2026, legal framework, and prevention strategies.
Understanding Technology-Facilitated Crimes Against Women
Technology-facilitated crimes against women refer to offences where digital tools—smartphones, hidden cameras, social media platforms, AI software, and tracking devices—are used to harass, exploit, or violate women’s privacy and dignity. These crimes often occur in public spaces but have a lasting digital footprint that amplifies the harm.
In 2026, the most common forms of technology-facilitated crimes against women in public spaces include:
- Voyeurism and Upskirt Filming: Secretly recording under women’s skirts or down blouses in crowded places like metro trains, buses, and markets.
- Street-Level Surveillance: Filming women walking in public and uploading the videos to social media without consent, often with objectifying commentary.
- AI-Enabled Image Abuse: Using artificial intelligence to create deepfake obscene images from publicly taken photographs.
- Hidden Camera Voyeurism: Using disguised spy cameras—often shaped like everyday objects—to secretly record women in public spaces.
- Cyberstalking and Doxxing: Using social media to identify, harass, and threaten women after public encounters.
- Dressing Room Voyeurism: Secretly recording women in trial rooms of clothing stores using hidden cameras or smartphones.
Notable Cases of Technology-Facilitated Crimes Against Women (2025-2026)
The following are news-reported incidents of technology-facilitated crimes against women, illustrating the real-world impact of these offences. These are not judicial precedents but documented cases from credible news sources.
Case 1: Bengaluru Metro “Metro Chicks” Voyeurism Case (2025-2026)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | News Report / Incident |
| Source | Indian Express, Times of India, News18 (May 2025 – April 2026) |
| Location | Namma Metro, Bengaluru, Karnataka |
| Accused | BK Diganth, 27-year-old accountant from Haveri |
| Modus Operandi | Diganth secretly filmed women commuters on the Namma Metro during his daily commute from Peenya to Indiranagar and posted the videos on Instagram and Telegram under the handle “Metro Chicks.” The account had close to 6,000 followers who had gathered specifically to watch and comment on women filmed without their consent. |
| Outcome | Arrested by Banashankari police in May 2025. In April 2026, the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the voyeurism case, stating that the videos were “obscene” and “objectifying” and dismissing the accused’s petition. |
| Legal Provisions | Booked under Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and provisions of the Information Technology Act. |
| Status | News report; not a judicial precedent. |
Case 2: Pune-Kolhapur Train AI Deepfake Case (August 2026)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | News Report / Incident |
| Source | Times Now, News18 (August 2026) |
| Location | Pune-Kolhapur Special Express, Maharashtra (Miraj to Pune) |
| Accused | Unnamed male passenger (reportedly intoxicated) |
| Modus Operandi | The accused secretly photographed a woman wearing a burqa seated in the general coach. He then used ChatGPT to create fake obscene images by digitally removing her clothing. Another passenger noticed the activity, recorded the incident, and alerted the railway police. |
| Outcome | Railway police boarded the train, seized the accused’s mobile phone, and found AI-generated obscene images in ChatGPT conversations. |
| Legal Provisions | Likely to be prosecuted under Section 77 BNS (voyeurism), Section 79 BNS (insult to modesty), and Section 67 IT Act. |
| Status | News report; not a judicial precedent. |
Case 3: Delhi AI Revenge Porn Case — 100 Fake Nudes (May 2026)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | News Report / Incident |
| Source | The Statesman, Times Now, NDTV (May 2026) |
| Location | Ahmedabad, Gujarat (accused from Delhi) |
| Accused | Sumit Nemchand Sharma, 27-year-old Delhi resident who created religious content online |
| Modus Operandi | After the woman rejected his advances, Sharma created 8-10 fake social media accounts impersonating her and her mother. He used AI tools to generate over 100 morphed nude images and videos, uploading them across multiple platforms to harass and defame her. |
| Outcome | Arrested by Ahmedabad Cyber Crime Branch under “Mission Cyber Rakshika.” Police traced him using technical surveillance and human intelligence inputs. |
| Legal Provisions | Sections 78(2) and 356(2) BNS, along with Sections 66(C) and 67 of the Information Technology Act. |
| Status | News report; not a judicial precedent. |
Case 4: Bengaluru Street Voyeurism — “IndianWalk” Instagram Page (July 2025)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | News Report / Incident |
| Source | ABP Live, The Hindu, Hindustan Times (July 2025) |
| Location | Bengaluru, Karnataka |
| Accused | Gurdeep Singh, 26-year-old unemployed hotel management graduate |
| Modus Operandi | Singh filmed women walking on Bengaluru streets in Church Street, Koramangala, and other busy areas without their consent and posted the voyeuristic videos on an anonymous Instagram account called “IndianWalk,” which had over 11,200 followers. |
| Outcome | Arrested by Banashankari police after a woman discovered her video on the account and escalated the matter by tagging Bengaluru Police and Cybercrime CID. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah expressed anguish, stating, “This is not the Karnataka we stand for.” |
| Legal Provisions | Booked for cyberstalking, voyeurism, and violation of privacy under BNS and IT Act. |
| Status | News report; not a judicial precedent. |
Case 5: Delhi Pilot — Hidden Spy Camera in Lighter (September 2025)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | News Report / Incident |
| Source | News18 (September 2025) |
| Location | Delhi markets and malls |
| Accused | Mohit Priyadarshi, 31-year-old pilot from Agra |
| Modus Operandi | Priyadarshi used a hidden spy camera designed to look like a cigarette lighter to secretly film women in upscale malls and crowded markets across Delhi. He placed the device between his legs to capture footage of women in short dresses or shorts. |
| Outcome | Arrested after a woman noticed the device and filed a complaint. Police recovered dozens of objectionable videos from the device. |
| Legal Provisions | Section 354 IPC (molestation) and provisions of the Information Technology Act. |
| Status | News report; not a judicial precedent. |
Case 6: Ahmedabad — Man Arrested for Filming Minor in Dressing Room (October 2025)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | News Report / Incident |
| Source | Indian Express (October 2025) |
| Location | Palladium Mall, Ahmedabad, Gujarat |
| Accused | 27-year-old man |
| Modus Operandi | The accused secretly recorded a 15-year-old girl inside the trial room of a clothing showroom at Palladium Mall. |
| Outcome | Arrested by Vastrapur police; case handed over to the SC/ST Cell. |
| Legal Provisions | Booked under BNS provisions and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. |
| Status | News report; not a judicial precedent. |
Case 7: Ahmedabad Cyber Crime Bust — 8 Arrested for Online Harassment (August 2026)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | News Report / Incident |
| Source | NDTV, Times Now (August 2026) |
| Location | Ahmedabad, Gujarat |
| Accused | 8 individuals, including one woman |
| Modus Operandi | The gang reportedly created 10 fake IDs over six months to target nearly 300 women, bombarding them with nude photographs, objectionable audio files, and abusive content. |
| Outcome | Arrested under “Mission Cyber Rakshika: #SecureHerSpace” campaign. |
| Status | News report; not a judicial precedent. |
Case 8: Chennai — Man Arrested for AI-Morphed Images Targeting Women (July 2026)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | News Report / Incident |
| Source | The Hindu (July 2026) |
| Location | Chennai, Tamil Nadu |
| Accused | 36-year-old man |
| Modus Operandi | Accused preyed on women and minor girls by running an online harassment racket, targeting them with AI-morphed obscene images. |
| Outcome | Arrested by Greater Chennai Police. |
| Status | News report; not a judicial precedent. |
Legal Framework for Technology-Facilitated Crimes Against Women
Victims of technology-facilitated crimes against women have several legal remedies available under Indian law:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
- Section 77 (Voyeurism): Whoever watches or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act without her consent, in circumstances where she would reasonably expect privacy, shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years. This applies to women secretly filmed in public transport, dressing rooms, and other semi-private spaces.
- Section 78 (Stalking): Following or monitoring a woman, or attempting to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest, shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years.
- Section 79 (Insulting Modesty): Words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman shall be punished with simple imprisonment up to 3 years.
- Section 296 (Obscene Acts in Public Place): Performing obscene acts in a public place shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years.
- Section 318(4) (Cheating): Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property — imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
- Section 336(3) (Forgery for Cheating): Forgery for purpose of cheating — imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
Information Technology Act, 2000
- Section 66C: Identity theft — fraudulent or dishonest use of electronic signature, password, or other unique identification feature. Punishment: imprisonment up to 3 years and/or fine up to ₹1 lakh.
- Section 66D: Cheating by personation using computer resources — imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
- Section 66E: Violation of privacy — capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of a private area of any person without consent — imprisonment up to 3 years or fine up to ₹2 lakh, or both.
- Section 67: Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form — imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹5 lakh (first conviction) and up to 5 years and fine up to ₹10 lakh (subsequent conviction).
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
Where the victim is a minor, as in the Ahmedabad dressing room case, the POCSO Act applies with stricter penalties.
Supreme Court on Voyeurism (2025)
The Supreme Court has clarified that recording women in public spaces without consent does not automatically constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC (now BNS 77) unless it captures private acts or images of a private area. However, when combined with public dissemination on social media, such acts can attract provisions of the IT Act and BNS provisions on obscenity.
Challenges in Enforcement
Despite a strong legal framework, enforcement of laws against technology-facilitated crimes against women faces several challenges:
- Lack of Awareness: Many victims are unaware of their legal rights or the reporting mechanisms available.
- Difficulty in Identification: Perpetrators using hidden cameras or anonymous social media accounts are difficult to identify.
- Gaps in AI Regulation: The rapid evolution of AI tools has outpaced existing legal frameworks, creating gaps in addressing AI-generated image abuse.
- Platform Response Time: Social media platforms often take time to remove non-consensual content, allowing it to spread widely.
- Forensic Challenges: Digital evidence requires specialized forensic expertise, and many police stations lack adequate resources.
Government Initiatives and Prevention Measures
The government has launched several initiatives to combat technology-facilitated crimes against women:
Mission Cyber Rakshika: #SecureHerSpace
Launched by the Ahmedabad Cyber Crime Branch, this campaign spreads awareness about cyber crimes against women, including blackmail, fake profiles, deepfakes, and AI-generated explicit content. The campaign has led to multiple arrests and increased reporting of offences.
Key Recommendations from Authorities
- Report Immediately: Call the national cyber helpline 1930.
- File Complaint: Lodge a complaint on the official cybercrime portal (https://cybercrime.gov.in).
- Keep Social Media Private: Avoid interacting closely with unknown individuals online.
- Document Evidence: Preserve screenshots, videos, and other evidence of harassment.
- Raise Alarm: As seen in the Hebbal mall case, bystander intervention can be crucial in apprehending perpetrators.
How to Stay Safe from Technology-Facilitated Crimes
- Be Aware of Surroundings: Watch for suspicious behaviour in crowded public spaces.
- Check Dressing Rooms: Look for hidden cameras or unusual objects in trial rooms.
- Use Privacy Screens: Protect your phone and laptop screens in public places.
- Monitor Social Media: Regularly check for unauthorized images or profiles.
- Report Suspicious Activity: Report any suspicious behaviour to security personnel or police.
- Educate Others: Share information about these crimes with family and friends.
Conclusion
Technology-facilitated crimes against women in public spaces have become a pervasive threat in India’s digital age. From AI deepfakes on trains and voyeuristic Instagram pages to hidden cameras in malls and dressing rooms, perpetrators are exploiting technology to violate women’s privacy and dignity.
The cases documented in this article—from the Bengaluru Metro “Metro Chicks” voyeurism to the Pune-Kolhapur train AI deepfake—demonstrate the urgent need for stronger legal frameworks, better enforcement, and increased public awareness. The government’s “Mission Cyber Rakshika” and initiatives like cyber helpline 1930 are positive steps, but more needs to be done.
Ultimately, combating technology-facilitated crimes against women requires a collective effort: stronger laws, vigilant citizens, responsible tech platforms, and a justice system that prioritizes the safety and dignity of women in public spaces.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What are technology-facilitated crimes against women?
Technology-facilitated crimes against women refer to offences where digital tools—smartphones, hidden cameras, AI software, and social media—are used to harass, exploit, or violate women’s privacy and dignity in public spaces.
Q2: What are the most common types of technology-facilitated crimes against women in public spaces?
Common types include voyeurism and upskirt filming on public transport, street-level surveillance and social media uploads, AI-enabled deepfake image abuse, hidden camera voyeurism in malls and dressing rooms, and cyberstalking.
Q3: What legal provisions apply to technology-facilitated crimes against women?
Legal provisions include Section 77 (voyeurism), Section 78 (stalking), Section 79 (insult to modesty), and Section 296 (obscene acts in public) of the BNS, along with Sections 66C, 66D, 66E, and 67 of the Information Technology Act.
Q4: What should I do if I am a victim of a technology-facilitated crime?
Stop all interaction with the perpetrator, document all evidence (screenshots, videos, URLs), report to the platform, call the cyber helpline 1930, file a complaint on cybercrime.gov.in, and approach the local cybercrime cell or police station.
Q5: What is the scale of technology-facilitated crimes against women in India?
India recorded a 118.4% increase in online crimes against women from 2020 to 2024. The National Cybercrime Reporting Portal registered 46,58,830 cases of cybercrime in the last three years, with a significant rise in technology-facilitated sexual harassment and voyeurism.
📚 Related Legal Guides on Adv. Shoeb Hakim’s Website:
- Section 66C IT Act Identity Theft 2026: Penalties & Legal Analysis
- Cyber Crime BNS Sections 2026: IPC to BNS Mapping
- Most Common Internet Cybercrimes 2026: 7 Threats & Prevention
- Digital Evidence in Legal Proceedings 2026: BSA, Cases & Challenges
- Become a Cybercrime Investigator 2026: Career Guide & Roadmap
📌 Explore More on Adv. Shoeb Hakim’s Website:
- Read More Articles on the Blog
- Book a Consultation with Adv. Shoeb Hakim
- Contact Adv. Shoeb Hakim
- Careers & Opportunities
By Adv. Shoeb Hakim
Criminal defence, AML, digital forensics, and cybercrime specialist; former Head of AML & Client ID (AVP), Credit Suisse; training police and judiciary since 1995.
📌 Connect: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shoebhakim | https://shoebhakim.com/shoeb-hakim-blog/
📌 Visit my website for more articles: https://shoebhakim.com
📌 Visit my website for research fellowship: https://www.legalcomplaince.in
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice on their specific circumstances.
Additional Page Metadata
- Author: Adv. Shoeb Hakim
- Author Bio: Adv. Shoeb Hakim is a Mumbai-based criminal defence, AML, digital forensics and cybercrime specialist. Former Head of AML & Client ID (AVP) at Credit Suisse. Has been training police and judiciary since 1995. Provides expert commentary on cybercrime, women’s safety, technology law, and criminal justice.
- Article Publisher: Adv. Shoeb Hakim
- Article Section: Cybercrime | Women’s Safety | Technology Law | Criminal Justice
- Article Tags: Technology-Facilitated Crimes Against Women, Voyeurism India, AI Deepfake Abuse, Women Safety Public Spaces, Cyber Crime Against Women, Bengaluru Metro Voyeurism, BNS Section 77, IT Act Section 66E, Mission Cyber Rakshika, Women’s Rights, Adv Shoeb Hakim
#TechnologyFacilitatedCrimes #WomenSafety #Voyeurism #Deepfake #AICrimes #CyberCrimeAgainstWomen #BNS77 #ITAct #MissionCyberRakshika #WomenInPublicSpaces #CyberSafety #DigitalRights #AdvShoebHakim
