In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru v. State of U.P

2. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Budaun, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

2.1.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 43974 of 2024 and the following order was passed: "1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record. 2-The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67A I.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Budaun, during the pendency of trial. 3-At the outset, learned A.G.A. pointed out that the applicant has not 2 BAIL No. 10412 of 2025 disclosed his criminal history whereas apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of following three cases :- "(i) Case Crime No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 127(2), 303, 308, 61(1) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun. (ii) Case Crime No. 366 of 2020, under Sections 354? , 506, 509 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun. (iii) Case Crime No. 185 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun." 4-In paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, the applicant has stated that he has not been convicted in any criminal case till date. 5-On putting query, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that since the brother of the applicant is deponent in the present case and he was not aware about the complete criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same could not be mentioned. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come with clean hand as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant. 7-In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender. 8-The said judgment has been further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 (4) SCC 781. 9-The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants/accused to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, who has approached the Court concealing material facts is not entitled for any relief and such petition/application can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 3 BAIL No. 10412 of 2025 10-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 11-However, it is open for the applicant to move second bail application with correct facts. 12-The certified copy of the F.I.R. shall be returned to the counsel for the applicant within three days' after retaining xerox copy of the same on record." PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, is that the applicant is alleged to have established contact with the victim on the pretext of searching of a house for tenancy via facebook messenger, who is widow and has an eleven-year-old son and, by adopting deceitful means, developed an intimate relationship with her. It is alleged that the applicant misrepresented his marital status and induced the victim into a relationship on the false pretext of marriage, and concealing the fact that he was already legally married to another woman, namely Swati Verma, and knowing that the said marriage was subsisting.

6. Thereafter, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relations with the victim and, during the course of such relationship, captured indecent photographs and videos of her, which were subsequently used to blackmail and exert pressure upon her and her father along with the abatement done to her landlord to force her out of her residence. The victim has alleged that such objectionable material has been provided to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Earlier he had also taken monetary benefits from her.

7. The prosecution further asserts that the applicant has adopted a similar modus operandi with other women, namely Parul Gupta and Queen Rastogi, thereby indicating a pattern of exploitation. It is also alleged that the applicant attempted to coerce and intimidate the victim by instituting a complaint case prior to the lodging of the present FIR, with a view to prevent her from initiating criminal proceedings against him. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

8. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the offence alleged in the FIR. 4 BAIL No. 10412 of 2025

9. The FIR was lodged on 24.09.2024 at about 03:34 PM in respect of an alleged incident dated 07.06.2024, and the delay in lodging the FIR renders the prosecution story doubtful.

10. The allegations levelled in the FIR are per se false and unsubstantiated, inasmuch as no incriminating or objectionable photographs or videos have been recovered from the possession of the applicant.

11. The victim is a widow with an 11-year-old son, obviously she is major, and thus fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions.

12. The genesis of the case lies in a consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim, who had come into contact through Facebook and thereafter started residing together as his live-in partners. It is contended that the consensual relationship later turned sour, leading to the lodging of the present FIR at the instance of the informant, Shruti Rathi, allegedly in collusion with other ladies, namely Queen Rastogi and Parul Gupta.

13. The victim herself has admitted to cohabiting with the applicant, and it is alleged that she, in collusion with Shanti Rathi, has conspired against the applicant and lodged successive FIRs.

14. The allegations of physical assault by the applicant and his family members are false, and that the applicant, in fact, maintained the victim during the subsistence of their relationship without taking any money from her.

15. Criminal history assigned to the applicant stands duly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

16. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2024, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

17. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the applicant has misused his clout and the modus operandi of the applicant is to lure innocent and vulnerable young girls into relationship through social media. 5 BAIL No. 10412 of 2025

18. The applicant was originally married to one Swati Verma and the said marriage still subsists. During the subsistence of said marriage, the applicant entered into a registered marriage with another lady, Queen Rastogi.

19. The applicant has ruined the life of the informant along with several other ladies namely, Parul Gupta and Queen Rastogi.

20. The applicant had also given a notice to the victim by moving a Complaint Case No. 25019 of 2024 before the learned A.C.J.M. Court No.2, Budaun filed on 06.08.2024 just to coerce her to refrain from instituting any FIR against him. CONCLUSION:

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the modus operandi of the applicant seems to be of luring innocent women into relationship as is evident from the instant case and the FIR No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 308(7), 303, 115(2), 119(1), 127(2), 61(1), 125(2), 351(2)(3), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 89 & 64 of BNS and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Budaun lodged by another women against the applicant with similar allegations, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

22. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

23. 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.

24. 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. March 23, 2026 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.)

2. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Budaun, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

2.1.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 43974 of 2024 and the following order was passed: "1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record. 2-The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67A I.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Budaun, during the pendency of trial. 3-At the outset, learned A.G.A. pointed out that the applicant has not 2 BAIL No. 10412 of 2025 disclosed his criminal history whereas apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of following three cases :- "(i) Case Crime No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 127(2), 303, 308, 61(1) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun. (ii) Case Crime No. 366 of 2020, under Sections 354? , 506, 509 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun. (iii) Case Crime No. 185 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun." 4-In paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, the applicant has stated that he has not been convicted in any criminal case till date. 5-On putting query, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that since the brother of the applicant is deponent in the present case and he was not aware about the complete criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same could not be mentioned. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come with clean hand as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant. 7-In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender. 8-The said judgment has been further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 (4) SCC 781. 9-The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants/accused to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, who has approached the Court concealing material facts is not entitled for any relief and such petition/application can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 3 BAIL No. 10412 of 2025 10-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 11-However, it is open for the applicant to move second bail application with correct facts. 12-The certified copy of the F.I.R. shall be returned to the counsel for the applicant within three days' after retaining xerox copy of the same on record." PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, is that the applicant is alleged to have established contact with the victim on the pretext of searching of a house for tenancy via facebook messenger, who is widow and has an eleven-year-old son and, by adopting deceitful means, developed an intimate relationship with her. It is alleged that the applicant misrepresented his marital status and induced the victim into a relationship on the false pretext of marriage, and concealing the fact that he was already legally married to another woman, namely Swati Verma, and knowing that the said marriage was subsisting.

6. Thereafter, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relations with the victim and, during the course of such relationship, captured indecent photographs and videos of her, which were subsequently used to blackmail and exert pressure upon her and her father along with the abatement done to her landlord to force her out of her residence. The victim has alleged that such objectionable material has been provided to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Earlier he had also taken monetary benefits from her.

7. The prosecution further asserts that the applicant has adopted a similar modus operandi with other women, namely Parul Gupta and Queen Rastogi, thereby indicating a pattern of exploitation. It is also alleged that the applicant attempted to coerce and intimidate the victim by instituting a complaint case prior to the lodging of the present FIR, with a view to prevent her from initiating criminal proceedings against him. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

8. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the offence alleged in the FIR. 4 BAIL No. 10412 of 2025

9. The FIR was lodged on 24.09.2024 at about 03:34 PM in respect of an alleged incident dated 07.06.2024, and the delay in lodging the FIR renders the prosecution story doubtful.

10. The allegations levelled in the FIR are per se false and unsubstantiated, inasmuch as no incriminating or objectionable photographs or videos have been recovered from the possession of the applicant.

11. The victim is a widow with an 11-year-old son, obviously she is major, and thus fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions.

12. The genesis of the case lies in a consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim, who had come into contact through Facebook and thereafter started residing together as his live-in partners. It is contended that the consensual relationship later turned sour, leading to the lodging of the present FIR at the instance of the informant, Shruti Rathi, allegedly in collusion with other ladies, namely Queen Rastogi and Parul Gupta.

13. The victim herself has admitted to cohabiting with the applicant, and it is alleged that she, in collusion with Shanti Rathi, has conspired against the applicant and lodged successive FIRs.

14. The allegations of physical assault by the applicant and his family members are false, and that the applicant, in fact, maintained the victim during the subsistence of their relationship without taking any money from her.

15. Criminal history assigned to the applicant stands duly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

16. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2024, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

17. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the applicant has misused his clout and the modus operandi of the applicant is to lure innocent and vulnerable young girls into relationship through social media. 5 BAIL No. 10412 of 2025

18. The applicant was originally married to one Swati Verma and the said marriage still subsists. During the subsistence of said marriage, the applicant entered into a registered marriage with another lady, Queen Rastogi.

19. The applicant has ruined the life of the informant along with several other ladies namely, Parul Gupta and Queen Rastogi.

20. The applicant had also given a notice to the victim by moving a Complaint Case No. 25019 of 2024 before the learned A.C.J.M. Court No.2, Budaun filed on 06.08.2024 just to coerce her to refrain from instituting any FIR against him. CONCLUSION:

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the modus operandi of the applicant seems to be of luring innocent women into relationship as is evident from the instant case and the FIR No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 308(7), 303, 115(2), 119(1), 127(2), 61(1), 125(2), 351(2)(3), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 89 & 64 of BNS and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Budaun lodged by another women against the applicant with similar allegations, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

22. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

23. 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.

24. 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. March 23, 2026 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.)