High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tarun Jha, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2024, under Sections 376, 328 I.P.C. and Section 66-E of I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim and had taken certain indecent photographs of her and had uploaded them on Facebook and Instagram. The said relationship is stated to have continued for a period of about seven years. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The allegations are per se false.

7. The victim is major and is a consenting party as is but evident from the circumstances.

8. The applicant is a divorcee and it is true that the applicant had married her but both of them had fallen apart subsequently, as such the instant FIR has been instituted.

9. There is no indecent photograph found on the said joint Facebook or Instagram account of the applicant and the victim.

10. The said URL was there but no photograph was available to be viewed by any person on social media.

11. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

12. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.06.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT :

13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant had posted certain photographs but had subsequently deleted them and after deleting the pictures, the URL does not get destroyed and it remains there, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail as he has misused his clout. CONCLUSION:

14. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

15. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

16. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

17. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

18. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

19. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration there being no photographs available and the corporeal relationship continued for a period of seven years and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant- Siddhant involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

22. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

23. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tarun Jha, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2024, under Sections 376, 328 I.P.C. and Section 66-E of I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim and had taken certain indecent photographs of her and had uploaded them on Facebook and Instagram. The said relationship is stated to have continued for a period of about seven years. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The allegations are per se false.

7. The victim is major and is a consenting party as is but evident from the circumstances.

8. The applicant is a divorcee and it is true that the applicant had married her but both of them had fallen apart subsequently, as such the instant FIR has been instituted.

9. There is no indecent photograph found on the said joint Facebook or Instagram account of the applicant and the victim.

10. The said URL was there but no photograph was available to be viewed by any person on social media.

11. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

12. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.06.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT :

13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant had posted certain photographs but had subsequently deleted them and after deleting the pictures, the URL does not get destroyed and it remains there, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail as he has misused his clout. CONCLUSION:

14. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

15. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

16. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

17. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

18. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

19. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration there being no photographs available and the corporeal relationship continued for a period of seven years and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant- Siddhant involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

22. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

23. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad