High Court · 2025

1-Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder representing the State. 2-By means of this application, applicant-Nitin Chauhan who is involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 308(5), 296(3), 317(2) B.N.S. and Section 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-Succinctly, the prosecution case is that the informant / victim himself got an F.I.R. lodged on 13.01.2025 against five unknown persons for the offence under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 308(5), 296, 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 66(D) I.T. Act alleging inter-alia that he started chatting with a person through online app, whom he did not know and they became friends through online app. He started trusting him. Thereafter on the evening of 12.01.2025, that person called him through online chat at Surya Garden. When he went to that place four persons were already present there. As soon as he reached at the gate of Surya Garden, they forcibly pushed him in a room and locked him. Thereafter all of them started beating him and also made him captive. They refused to let him go and made him naked, taken his obscene photos and also made videos from mobile. Thereafter, they started demanding money by threatening to make his obscene photos and videos viral. They sent a UPI ID 9939382204 @ IBL to him and forcibly got Rs. 1000/- at 6:44 pm, Rs 43,000/- at 6:52 pm and Rs. 25,300 at 07:01 pm transferred. They also threatened him of dire consequences if he reports the matter to the police. 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. There is no eye witness of the incident. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. Allegation made by the prosecution is false and against the evidence on record. All the five accused persons, namely, Kapil Verma, Sandeep Rajpoot, Nitin Chauhan (applicant), Deepak Verma and Arjun Sharma were apprehended together, out of which three accused persons, namely, Deepak Verma, Sandeep and Kapil Verma have been granted bail by the trial Court but the bail application of the applicant has wrongly been rejected by the trial court. Much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2025 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that :- 6-It is an organized crime by a group of persons adopting different modus-operandi whereby they make online friendship with innocent persons. When he got trapped in their network and starts trusting them, they call him to meet themselves. When he goes to meet them, they keep him in their captivity and after disrobing him takes his nude photographs and also made his obscene videos. Thereafter they by blacking him, extract huge amount. 7-It is also pointed out two incident of similar nature were reported to police. On the complainant of complainant-Saurabh, a case crime no. 19 of 2025 under Sections 127(2), 115(2)/351(2), 308(5), 296/3 (5) B.N.S. and Section 66D of I.T. Act was registered on 13.01.2025 at Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, in which complicity of five persons, namely, Kapil Verma, Sandeep Rajpoot, Nitin Chauhan (applicant), Deepak Verma and Arjun Sharma have been found. 8-Similarly, on the complainant of complainant- Vaibhav, another case crime no. 20 of 2025 under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 308(5), 296/3(5), 317(2) B.N.S. and Section 66D of I.T. Act was registered on 13.01.2025 at Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, in which complicity of eight persons namely Kapil Verma, Sandeep Rajpoot, Nitin Chauhan (applicant), Deepak Verma, Arjun Sharma, Arun alias Kartik, Abhishek Balyan and Abhishek Chaudhary have been found. 9-On 14.01.2025, when police personnel were on petroling duty, they received an information that the accused persons of both the above cases are gathering near the Weavers Mart Crossing for sharing of the money. On the said information, police personnel went their and all the above eight accused persons were apprehended together and from their possession, following recovery has been made:- A-One mobile phone each was recovered from each accused namely Kapil Verma, Sandeep Rajpoot, Deepak Verma, Arun alias Kartik, Abhishek Balyan and Abhishek Chaudhary. B-Two mobile phone was recovered from accused Arjun Sharma. C-One mobile phone and Rs. 70,000/- was recovered from Nitin Chauhan (applicant). D-Regarding the said recovered amount of Rs. 70,000/-, he disclosed that out of which Rs. 30,000/- is related to aforesaid case crime no. 19 of 2025, which he along with co-accused have extracted from complainant-Saurabh. He also disclosed that they forcefully got total Rs. 69,300/- transferred from Saurabh in three transactions to UPI ID 9939382204 @ IBL of one Sandeep's acquaintance. Out of which only 30,000/- is left. E-So far as remaining amount Rs. 40,000/- is concerned, the same is related to aforesaid case crime no. 20 of 2025, which they have extracted from complainant-Vaibhav. He also disclosed that they forcefully got total Rs.98,000/- transferred from Vaibhav to his mobile UPI ID 8826659916-2 @ YBL, which is in the name of Suraj Electrical. Out of which only 40,000/- is left. F-From the mobile phone of the applicant, an obscene video dated 12.01.2025 of complainant/victim has also been recovered and some photographs were also found, to which he disclosed that he had taken photographs of Saurabh's family's mobile numbers from his mobile phone so that they could blackmail them later for money. G-A video made on 13.01.2025 was also found in the mobile phone of the applicant, in which two persons are seen without clothes. On putting query in this regard, the aforesaid apprehended persons told that one out of them is Vaibhav. Some photographs of mobile numbers were also found, to which he disclosed that he had taken photographs of Vaibhav's family's mobile numbers from his mobile phone so that they could blackmail them for money later on. H-On the basis of aforesaid recovery, Section 317 (2) B.N.S. was added during investigation. I-The trial Court, while rejecting bail application of has given cogent reasons the applicant, distinguishing the case of applicant from the case of other co-accused namely, Deepak Verma, Sandeep and Kapil Verma. J-It is also pointed out that videos dated 12.01.2025 and 13.01.2025 recovered from the mobile of applicant was taken in a pen-drive. K-Lastly it is submitted that in case applicant is granted bail, there is every possibility of his tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 10-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, manner in which the crime has been committed and recovery of cash amount as note above and obscene video of complainant from the mobile phone of the applicant as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 11-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 12-It is clarified that observations made herein above are limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 13-The trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1-Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder representing the State. 2-By means of this application, applicant-Nitin Chauhan who is involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 308(5), 296(3), 317(2) B.N.S. and Section 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-Succinctly, the prosecution case is that the informant / victim himself got an F.I.R. lodged on 13.01.2025 against five unknown persons for the offence under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 308(5), 296, 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 66(D) I.T. Act alleging inter-alia that he started chatting with a person through online app, whom he did not know and they became friends through online app. He started trusting him. Thereafter on the evening of 12.01.2025, that person called him through online chat at Surya Garden. When he went to that place four persons were already present there. As soon as he reached at the gate of Surya Garden, they forcibly pushed him in a room and locked him. Thereafter all of them started beating him and also made him captive. They refused to let him go and made him naked, taken his obscene photos and also made videos from mobile. Thereafter, they started demanding money by threatening to make his obscene photos and videos viral. They sent a UPI ID 9939382204 @ IBL to him and forcibly got Rs. 1000/- at 6:44 pm, Rs 43,000/- at 6:52 pm and Rs. 25,300 at 07:01 pm transferred. They also threatened him of dire consequences if he reports the matter to the police. 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. There is no eye witness of the incident. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. Allegation made by the prosecution is false and against the evidence on record. All the five accused persons, namely, Kapil Verma, Sandeep Rajpoot, Nitin Chauhan (applicant), Deepak Verma and Arjun Sharma were apprehended together, out of which three accused persons, namely, Deepak Verma, Sandeep and Kapil Verma have been granted bail by the trial Court but the bail application of the applicant has wrongly been rejected by the trial court. Much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2025 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that :- 6-It is an organized crime by a group of persons adopting different modus-operandi whereby they make online friendship with innocent persons. When he got trapped in their network and starts trusting them, they call him to meet themselves. When he goes to meet them, they keep him in their captivity and after disrobing him takes his nude photographs and also made his obscene videos. Thereafter they by blacking him, extract huge amount. 7-It is also pointed out two incident of similar nature were reported to police. On the complainant of complainant-Saurabh, a case crime no. 19 of 2025 under Sections 127(2), 115(2)/351(2), 308(5), 296/3 (5) B.N.S. and Section 66D of I.T. Act was registered on 13.01.2025 at Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, in which complicity of five persons, namely, Kapil Verma, Sandeep Rajpoot, Nitin Chauhan (applicant), Deepak Verma and Arjun Sharma have been found. 8-Similarly, on the complainant of complainant- Vaibhav, another case crime no. 20 of 2025 under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 308(5), 296/3(5), 317(2) B.N.S. and Section 66D of I.T. Act was registered on 13.01.2025 at Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, in which complicity of eight persons namely Kapil Verma, Sandeep Rajpoot, Nitin Chauhan (applicant), Deepak Verma, Arjun Sharma, Arun alias Kartik, Abhishek Balyan and Abhishek Chaudhary have been found. 9-On 14.01.2025, when police personnel were on petroling duty, they received an information that the accused persons of both the above cases are gathering near the Weavers Mart Crossing for sharing of the money. On the said information, police personnel went their and all the above eight accused persons were apprehended together and from their possession, following recovery has been made:- A-One mobile phone each was recovered from each accused namely Kapil Verma, Sandeep Rajpoot, Deepak Verma, Arun alias Kartik, Abhishek Balyan and Abhishek Chaudhary. B-Two mobile phone was recovered from accused Arjun Sharma. C-One mobile phone and Rs. 70,000/- was recovered from Nitin Chauhan (applicant). D-Regarding the said recovered amount of Rs. 70,000/-, he disclosed that out of which Rs. 30,000/- is related to aforesaid case crime no. 19 of 2025, which he along with co-accused have extracted from complainant-Saurabh. He also disclosed that they forcefully got total Rs. 69,300/- transferred from Saurabh in three transactions to UPI ID 9939382204 @ IBL of one Sandeep's acquaintance. Out of which only 30,000/- is left. E-So far as remaining amount Rs. 40,000/- is concerned, the same is related to aforesaid case crime no. 20 of 2025, which they have extracted from complainant-Vaibhav. He also disclosed that they forcefully got total Rs.98,000/- transferred from Vaibhav to his mobile UPI ID 8826659916-2 @ YBL, which is in the name of Suraj Electrical. Out of which only 40,000/- is left. F-From the mobile phone of the applicant, an obscene video dated 12.01.2025 of complainant/victim has also been recovered and some photographs were also found, to which he disclosed that he had taken photographs of Saurabh's family's mobile numbers from his mobile phone so that they could blackmail them later for money. G-A video made on 13.01.2025 was also found in the mobile phone of the applicant, in which two persons are seen without clothes. On putting query in this regard, the aforesaid apprehended persons told that one out of them is Vaibhav. Some photographs of mobile numbers were also found, to which he disclosed that he had taken photographs of Vaibhav's family's mobile numbers from his mobile phone so that they could blackmail them for money later on. H-On the basis of aforesaid recovery, Section 317 (2) B.N.S. was added during investigation. I-The trial Court, while rejecting bail application of has given cogent reasons the applicant, distinguishing the case of applicant from the case of other co-accused namely, Deepak Verma, Sandeep and Kapil Verma. J-It is also pointed out that videos dated 12.01.2025 and 13.01.2025 recovered from the mobile of applicant was taken in a pen-drive. K-Lastly it is submitted that in case applicant is granted bail, there is every possibility of his tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 10-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, manner in which the crime has been committed and recovery of cash amount as note above and obscene video of complainant from the mobile phone of the applicant as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 11-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 12-It is clarified that observations made herein above are limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 13-The trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad