High Court

2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durg Vijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.0361 of 2024, under Sections 64, 333 B.N.S., Section 66 I.T. Act and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12660 of 2025 and the following order was passed:- "1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0361 of 2024, U/S 64, 333 B.N.S. and 66 I.T. Act and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have edited the photograph of the victim and posted it on whatsapp and thereby threatened the victim and had committed rape with her on 12.10.2024 at about 5.30 pm and again on 5.12.2024 at about 8.00 pm by barging into her house. The applicant is stated to have taken certain indecent photographs and video of the victim and made them viral on social media. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The applicant has a strong alibi on the date of offence alleged to have been committed by him, as he was not present at the place of occurrence. Rather, he was present at hotel Dr. Krishna Palace on 5.12.2024 from 8.00 pm to 9.15 pm. The said report has been filed as Annexure-7 collectively alongwith certain photographs showing her consent.

8. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2024 having no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

9. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that that the applicant has misused his clout and the trust of the victim by making viral the indecent photographs and video of her. The said photos and video have been recovered from his mobile and from the same mobile, the Instagram ID in the name of the victim was also recovered, which was generated by using the e-mail ID of the applicant. The applicant had posted the said indecent photographs of the victim using the same Instagram ID. CONCLUSION:

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the applicant had posted the indecent photographs and video of the victim on instagram, thereby tarnishing her image, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, the victim has denied that the applicant had ever used her name and made a fake Instagram I.D. and posted certain indecent photographs and video of her. Two witnesses have been examined and both of them have not supported the prosecution story and have reslied from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the instant case. The applicant is in jail since 25.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.

9. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974, the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is no proper explanation of paragraph-9 of the earlier order of this Court dated 28.04.2025, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durg Vijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.0361 of 2024, under Sections 64, 333 B.N.S., Section 66 I.T. Act and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12660 of 2025 and the following order was passed:- "1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0361 of 2024, U/S 64, 333 B.N.S. and 66 I.T. Act and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have edited the photograph of the victim and posted it on whatsapp and thereby threatened the victim and had committed rape with her on 12.10.2024 at about 5.30 pm and again on 5.12.2024 at about 8.00 pm by barging into her house. The applicant is stated to have taken certain indecent photographs and video of the victim and made them viral on social media. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The applicant has a strong alibi on the date of offence alleged to have been committed by him, as he was not present at the place of occurrence. Rather, he was present at hotel Dr. Krishna Palace on 5.12.2024 from 8.00 pm to 9.15 pm. The said report has been filed as Annexure-7 collectively alongwith certain photographs showing her consent.

8. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2024 having no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

9. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that that the applicant has misused his clout and the trust of the victim by making viral the indecent photographs and video of her. The said photos and video have been recovered from his mobile and from the same mobile, the Instagram ID in the name of the victim was also recovered, which was generated by using the e-mail ID of the applicant. The applicant had posted the said indecent photographs of the victim using the same Instagram ID. CONCLUSION:

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the applicant had posted the indecent photographs and video of the victim on instagram, thereby tarnishing her image, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, the victim has denied that the applicant had ever used her name and made a fake Instagram I.D. and posted certain indecent photographs and video of her. Two witnesses have been examined and both of them have not supported the prosecution story and have reslied from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the instant case. The applicant is in jail since 25.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.

9. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. The same view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022) 3 SCC 501; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. In Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another 2025 INSC 974, the Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted by High Court held that the bail orders in grave criminal cases must be passed with caution, reflecting consideration of all relevant legal and factual circumstances, and are subject to appellate scrutiny for misapplication or oversight of such factors.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is no proper explanation of paragraph-9 of the earlier order of this Court dated 28.04.2025, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal)