Allahabad High Court
Aditya@ Rahul vs State Of Up Others on 23 August, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136005 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2900 of 2024 Applicant :- Aditya@ Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Hariom Mishra,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mool Chandra Maurya Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file counter affidavit.
2. Heard Sri Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2023, U/S 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Marhara, District Etah, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant, who happens to be the grand-son (Dhevta) of the Principal Satyapal Singh of RAB College, is stated to have created a fake facebook account in the name of the daughter of the informant. The applicant used to send indecent messages to the victim and other persons. The applicant is even stated to have informed the victim that he had with him some objectionable photos of her and he shall make them viral on social media, lest she shall enter into corporeal relationship with him. The applicant is even stated to have threatened her on whatsapp and as such, established corporeal relationship with her several times and again clicked several indecent photographs and recorded video of her and kept on blackmailing her to make them viral on social media. The victim kept mum due to the fear of the applicant.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.
6. The FIR was instituted against the applicant on 12.8.2023. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The missing report does not support the prosecution story.
7. The victim is the consenting party, as both had cordial relations with each other. The applicant has not made viral any video or photograph of the victim on any social media. The facebook ID was created with a different name having different spellings from those of the name of the applicant herein, as such, the said facebook ID does not match with that of the victim. No name and picture of the victim were used in creating the said facebook ID.
8. Nothing objectionable has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or from his mobile. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the applicant used to blackmail the victim on the garb of making viral the said videos and photographs of the victim on social media.
9. As per the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the incident is stated to have taken place in the year 2018.
10. As per her High School certificate, her date of birth is 6.5.2002, as such, she was about 16 years old at the time of offence, as such, the case does not come within the purview of POCSO Act. The applicant himself is a young boy aged about 26 years and maintained healthy relations with the victim.
11. The real fact is that the said fake ID has been created by either the informant or any of his family members, as it was the applicant, who was requesting the informant to get it deleted.
12. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.9.2023, having no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:
13. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that he did not file the said obscene photographs, as it would be detrimental to the life of the victim but he has provided them to the Court. A bare perusal of the said photographs indicates that there are indecent and obscene photographs uploaded on the said ID created in the name of the victim. Even the perusal of the said record indicates that the applicant had even passed indecent remarks against the victim and has even posted some indecent videos of certain ladies.
14. Learned A.G.A. has opposed on the ground that the applicant has misused his clout and ruined the life of the victim by posting certain indecent photographs by creating a fake ID in the name of the victim herein.
CONCLUSION:
15. After taking into consideration the rival submissions and the fact that the applicant has created a fake ID of the victim on the facebook and posted indecent photographs thereon, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
16. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
17. 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.
18. 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 :- 23.8.2024 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal)