A 16-year-old Bengaluru student was lured by a social media acquaintance, stripped, assaulted, and filmed under duress by a group of minors in a parking lot near Wilson Garden on April 5, 2025. The assailants, who remain at large, forced the boy to record a false confession of harassing girls and demanded ₹10,000 as blackmail.
The victim’s mother filed a police complaint on April 25 after weeks of hesitation, prompting authorities to register a case under the POCSO Act, IT Act, and sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) pertaining to extortion, wrongful restraint, and assault.
Investigators are probing potential links to a girl allegedly involved in orchestrating the attack, while efforts to trace the accused-all minors-continue.
Assault, Coercion, and the Perils of Digital Trust
The victim, a Class 10 student from a central Bengaluru school, had befriended the prime suspect, identified as Afridi or Arif (name changed), through a social media platform. On April 5, under the guise of a casual meet-up, the boy was directed to a parking lot near Nimhans, where five others ambushed him.
Eyewitness accounts (as per the FIR) suggest the group brandished a wooden stick, stripped the victim, and filmed him while coercing him to “confess” to making explicit videos of girls and extorting ₹50,000-a narrative entirely fabricated by the perpetrators.
The attackers allegedly threatened to circulate the video on platforms like Instagram and Snapchat unless the boy paid ₹10,000, warning him against informing his parents or authorities. The victim returned home traumatized, spending days in isolation before confiding in his mother, who noted visible injuries and behavioral changes.
Delayed Reporting, Legal Complexities, and Investigative Hurdles
The 20-day delay in filing the complaint, as explained by the mother, stemmed from fears of retaliation and social stigma. Police sources reveal the accused had no prior connection to the victim’s school or locality, highlighting the risks of online friendships.
Investigators are examining whether a girl known to the victim-reportedly an Instagram contact-played a role in planning the attack. An FIR has been registered under Sections 75 (punishment for cruelty to children) and 76 (non-reporting of offences against children) of the Juvenile Justice Act, alongside Sections 503 (criminal intimidation), 384 (extortion), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the BNS.
A senior officer involved stated, “The accused appear to have used VPNs to mask their digital footprints, complicating tracing efforts. We’re collaborating with cybercrime units to expedite the process.”
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This incident is a chilling reminder of how digital anonymity and peer pressure can weaponize adolescent relationships. While the law must deliver swift justice, societal change is equally critical: schools need mandatory digital literacy programs that teach consent, privacy, and responsible online behavior.
Parents and caregivers must foster non-judgmental spaces where children feel safe reporting threats. The Logical Indian urges tech companies to strengthen minor safeguarding protocols, such as mandatory parental alerts for underage accounts and faster takedown mechanisms for abusive content.
As we advocate for systemic reforms, we ask our readers: How can communities bridge the gap between punitive legal measures and preventive education to protect vulnerable youth?
