Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra Singh@ Bantu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143002 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26250 of 2023 Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh@ Bantu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Mishra Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Sri Akash Mishra Advocate today filed his power on behalf of the informant, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ram Narayan Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act & 67A I.T. Act, Police Station- Badhpura, District- Etawah, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
4. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant on 13.03.2023 under Section 376, 506 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act and 67A I.T. Act.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation of blackmailing and sexual exploitation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and actually applicant and victim were having relationship with each other but subsequently some dispute arose between them, therefore, victim i.e. informant of the case lodged FIR of the present case.
6. He further submitted that although, during investigation, it was revealed that from the mobile phone of the applicant, some indecent photographs of the victim were posted on social media but merely on the basis of indecent photographs, it cannot be said that applicant was blackmailing her for last about three years.
7. He further submitted that for posting of any indecent content on social media maximum punishment provided for first offence is five years and with fine, which may extend upto Rs. 10 lacs and merely on the basis of alleged indecent photographs of the victim, it could not be said that applicant sexually exploited the victim. He further submitted that if victim was being sexually exploited for last three years then why she earlier did not lodge FIR against the applicant and considering the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, applicant may be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he not only sexually exploited the victim but also posted her indecent photographs on social media and this fact is evident from the parcha no. 10 of the case diary dated 21.04.2023.
9. Learned counsel for the informant further pointed out, during the course of argument learned counsel for applicant argued, applicant and victim were having relationship but in the instant bail application he has taken totally different plea and stated that father of the prosecutrix is a distant relative of the applicant and due to dispute of Rs. 1 lac, he has falsely been implicated in the present matter, therefore, this fact clearly suggests that applicant at various stages tried to change her defence version, which shows that actually he sexually exploited the victim, therefore, he does not deserve bail.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
11. In the FIR as well as in both the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. there is allegation of sexual exploitation against the applicant and also allegation against him that he posted the indecent photographs of the victim on social media and during investigation it was found that from the mobile phone of the applicant indecent photographs of the victim were posted on social media and this fact is evident form the parcha no. 10 of the case diary dated 21.04.2023.
12. Further, although, during the course of argument learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and victim were having relationship and some dispute arose between them, therefore, she implicated him in the present matter but in paragraph no. 7 of the affidavit, he specifically averred that due to dispute arose between applicant and father of the prosecutrix with regard to payment of Rs. 1 lac, applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
15. 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 :- 18.7.2023 KK Patel