Manisha Jha vs State Of U.P. on 27 February, 2024

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Manisha Jha vs State Of U.P. on 27 February, 2024

2. Heard Sri Aravind Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atul Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 211 of 2022, registered under Sections 376-D,120-B IPC, P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

4. As per prosecution story, due to poor economical condition the informant was in search of job and she saw an advertisement on facebook to earn Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- daily by sitting at home by downloading and operating an application named "Chamet". The informant downloaded the said application from play store and after making Id on the said app she got a whatsapp message on her mobile number from one Jeet that she will receive video call and she will have to promote application, but after that several nude calls started coming on the said application demanding her to come nude on video call. When she informed about this to the manager of the said app, she was threatened to make her nude videos viral. When she has given this information to the applicant, who is owner of the said App, she also threatened her and asked her to contact co-accused Jeet. When she contacted the co-accused Jeet he called her to his flat at Dwarika Delhi. There are allegations of sexual assault and threatening of the informant that they will make her nude videos viral. As such she was threatened to continue engaged in the said obscene video calling racket.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is a lady and her name is Manisha Jha and she has nothing to do with the said offence. The instant first information report has been lodged with a oblique motive and malafide intention just to harass and create undue pressure upon the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that first information report is delayed by about five months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after further delay of two months. The said statement of victim, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, is contradictory to the allegations levelled in lodging of the first information report. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant is a habitual offender as she is involved in many honey trap cases and other criminal activities. There is criminal history of one case against the informant which has been registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0885 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Jaura, District Morena, Madhya Pradesh. The applicant, being lady, has no previous criminal antecedents. In addition to the present FIR, only FIR No. 82 of 2022 has been instituted by the persons of the company which has been annexed with the affidavit filed with the application. The applicant has applied for anticipatory bail in the said case before the High Court. The applicant was not arrested during investigation and Final Report (charge-sheet) has been submitted. 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. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that as far as his knowledge the closure report has been filed in the FIR instituted against the applicant. But they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent to the instant FIR.

7. Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.

8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Manisha Jha be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 A. Tripathi (Justice Krishan Pahal)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court