State of U.P v. Party

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This is third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant - Ankit @ Banti in case crime no. 176 of 2022 under Sections 386, 354(ka), 354(gha), 504, 506 IPC and 66(D), 66(E), 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, P.S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the record record.

3. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49522 of 2022 of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 14.2.2023. Likewise, the second Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48987 of 2023 was also rejected by this Court on 8.4.2024.

4. The instant third bail application has been moved on two grounds, firstly, on the ground of incarceration period and, secondly by virtue of Section 437(6) CrPC which mandates that in a Magistrate triable case if the trial before a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days of the first date fixed for taking evidence, the accused, if in custody, shall be released on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2022 and the trial is still pending, hence, he is entitled to get bail on the ground of delayed trial, in particular on the basis of the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC. It is further submitted that copies of the order sheets placed 2 BAIL No. 15060 of 2025 on record in this bail application reveals that the charges were framed against the applicant on 3.4.2023 and the first date fixed for evidence was 29.4.2023 and since then the matter is pending for prosecution evidence which is still not concluded even after expiry of more than two years. It is further submitted that from a perusal of the sections under which charges have been framed against the applicant it is evident that the present is the case which is triable by the Magistrate and hence by virtue of the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC are not mandatory and the matter is pending before the trial court at the stage of evidence and some witnesses have already been examined. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

8. To appreciate the factual matrix of this case, the observations made by this Court while deciding the first bail application of the accused / applicant may also be kept in mind at this stage while deciding the third bail application and the relevant extract of the said order dated 14.2.2023 passed on the first bail application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence is reproduced as under : "In this matter, it reveals from the perusal of the record that the victim is the sister of the brother-in- law (behnoi) of the applicant, who alongwith other co- accused persons anyhow obtained the mobile number, photographs and other data of the friends and colleagues of the informant and started chasing her physically and online and used to make obscene chats, abusing in filthy language, threatening to defame her in the society and also to kidnap her and his brother for murder and he also made fake ID in order to blackmail the informant by making some obscene videos and to make it viral and he also extorted Rs.2,34,020/- as extortion money. The 3 BAIL No. 15060 of 2025 applicant alongwith co-accused hacked the facebook and G- mail account of the informant and committed data theft also. He always tried to take the updates of the informant and threatened her for not picking her phone. The applicant also sent messages on her mobile phone to make illicit relations with him, which was protested by the informant. He again threatened her to make her obscene video viral and also for her kidnapping and murder. When the informant went to Netherlands after her marriage, applicant again threatened her on her new mobile phone by messaging and by whatsapp call and demanded Rs.5 lakh as extortion money and again threatened to make her obscene videos viral and also to sell that video in the black market. The informant informed all the incidents to her husband and family members and after checking, all the phone numbers were found to be of the present applicant and his family members. His father Dinesh Balian, on complaint, also took no action, but asked the informant to send Rs.2 lakh as extortion money in the bank account of the applicant. After lodging of the F.I.R., the investigation started and sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused-applicant so far, as it appears from the perusal of the case diary, which is available before the Court. The informant / victim is a married lady and is in close relation with the present applicant. It is not tolerable in any civilized society to blackmail a married lady by threatening her to make her obscene video / photographs viral on social media and in the society and also to sell it in the black market and further it is not acceptable to extort money in lieu of that. The act of the accused applicant is not acceptable in the society we live in and such person is not entitled to get free to continue with his immoral and illegal activities"

9. The legal principles rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 5 SCC 140 also denote that the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC as such cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused. The reasons for rejection an application under Section 437(6) CrPC have to be 4 BAIL No. 15060 of 2025 different, however, they cannot be an absolute proposition and some of the reasons which may be relevant for rejection for regular bail under Section 437(1) and 437(2) CrPC may also be relevant for rejection of bail application under Section 437(6) CrPC.

10. So far as the present matter is concerned, the reasons by virtue of which the first bail application of the accused / applicant was rejected are still very relevant at this juncture. The allegations against the applicant are serious. Hence, keeping in view the complicity of the accused / applicant in the commission of the alleged crime, daring acts of the applicant and other factors making the offence more serious for the accused / applicant, in my view, since the accused / applicant by his offensive act has played with dignity, reputation and character of the lady victim, gives this Court a valid reason for rejection of the instant third bail application of the applicant. He is not eligible to take benefit of the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC.

11. Accordingly, the third bail application is rejected.

12. However, the trial court is directed to decide the trial of this case expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it. September 16, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This is third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant - Ankit @ Banti in case crime no. 176 of 2022 under Sections 386, 354(ka), 354(gha), 504, 506 IPC and 66(D), 66(E), 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, P.S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the record record.

3. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49522 of 2022 of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 14.2.2023. Likewise, the second Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48987 of 2023 was also rejected by this Court on 8.4.2024.

4. The instant third bail application has been moved on two grounds, firstly, on the ground of incarceration period and, secondly by virtue of Section 437(6) CrPC which mandates that in a Magistrate triable case if the trial before a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days of the first date fixed for taking evidence, the accused, if in custody, shall be released on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2022 and the trial is still pending, hence, he is entitled to get bail on the ground of delayed trial, in particular on the basis of the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC. It is further submitted that copies of the order sheets placed 2 BAIL No. 15060 of 2025 on record in this bail application reveals that the charges were framed against the applicant on 3.4.2023 and the first date fixed for evidence was 29.4.2023 and since then the matter is pending for prosecution evidence which is still not concluded even after expiry of more than two years. It is further submitted that from a perusal of the sections under which charges have been framed against the applicant it is evident that the present is the case which is triable by the Magistrate and hence by virtue of the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC are not mandatory and the matter is pending before the trial court at the stage of evidence and some witnesses have already been examined. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

8. To appreciate the factual matrix of this case, the observations made by this Court while deciding the first bail application of the accused / applicant may also be kept in mind at this stage while deciding the third bail application and the relevant extract of the said order dated 14.2.2023 passed on the first bail application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence is reproduced as under : "In this matter, it reveals from the perusal of the record that the victim is the sister of the brother-in- law (behnoi) of the applicant, who alongwith other co- accused persons anyhow obtained the mobile number, photographs and other data of the friends and colleagues of the informant and started chasing her physically and online and used to make obscene chats, abusing in filthy language, threatening to defame her in the society and also to kidnap her and his brother for murder and he also made fake ID in order to blackmail the informant by making some obscene videos and to make it viral and he also extorted Rs.2,34,020/- as extortion money. The 3 BAIL No. 15060 of 2025 applicant alongwith co-accused hacked the facebook and G- mail account of the informant and committed data theft also. He always tried to take the updates of the informant and threatened her for not picking her phone. The applicant also sent messages on her mobile phone to make illicit relations with him, which was protested by the informant. He again threatened her to make her obscene video viral and also for her kidnapping and murder. When the informant went to Netherlands after her marriage, applicant again threatened her on her new mobile phone by messaging and by whatsapp call and demanded Rs.5 lakh as extortion money and again threatened to make her obscene videos viral and also to sell that video in the black market. The informant informed all the incidents to her husband and family members and after checking, all the phone numbers were found to be of the present applicant and his family members. His father Dinesh Balian, on complaint, also took no action, but asked the informant to send Rs.2 lakh as extortion money in the bank account of the applicant. After lodging of the F.I.R., the investigation started and sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused-applicant so far, as it appears from the perusal of the case diary, which is available before the Court. The informant / victim is a married lady and is in close relation with the present applicant. It is not tolerable in any civilized society to blackmail a married lady by threatening her to make her obscene video / photographs viral on social media and in the society and also to sell it in the black market and further it is not acceptable to extort money in lieu of that. The act of the accused applicant is not acceptable in the society we live in and such person is not entitled to get free to continue with his immoral and illegal activities"

9. The legal principles rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 5 SCC 140 also denote that the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC as such cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused. The reasons for rejection an application under Section 437(6) CrPC have to be 4 BAIL No. 15060 of 2025 different, however, they cannot be an absolute proposition and some of the reasons which may be relevant for rejection for regular bail under Section 437(1) and 437(2) CrPC may also be relevant for rejection of bail application under Section 437(6) CrPC.

10. So far as the present matter is concerned, the reasons by virtue of which the first bail application of the accused / applicant was rejected are still very relevant at this juncture. The allegations against the applicant are serious. Hence, keeping in view the complicity of the accused / applicant in the commission of the alleged crime, daring acts of the applicant and other factors making the offence more serious for the accused / applicant, in my view, since the accused / applicant by his offensive act has played with dignity, reputation and character of the lady victim, gives this Court a valid reason for rejection of the instant third bail application of the applicant. He is not eligible to take benefit of the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC.

11. Accordingly, the third bail application is rejected.

12. However, the trial court is directed to decide the trial of this case expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it. September 16, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad