Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 ( 2025:HHC:41287 )

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner and the informant were in a consensual .

relationship. The petitioner refused to meet the informant's demand of ₹ 12,00,000/-, and she filed a false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition for seeking pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed by the of learned Sessions Judge, Una, on 24.06.2025. The petitioner filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP (M) rt No.1526/25 and was dismissed on 14.07.2025. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition as SLP (Cr.) No.11295/2025. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner withdrew the petition on 04.11.2025 with liberty to approach the Competent Court for the grant of bail. The petitioner subsequently filed a bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed on 24.11.2025. The status report shows that the police have not sought the custodial interrogation. Two persons were found to be involved in the commission of the offence. The Instagram ID was being operated by one minor and the petitioner. The status report mentioned that the photographs were sent to Nikhil Sharma, but this statement is incorrect because the Internet Protocol Detail Records (IPDR) data only shows the ID of the person using the social media 3 ( 2025:HHC:41287 ) platform and does not confirm the sending of the material.

orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. His medical examination was conducted. His blood sample was preserved. The Medical Officer issued a report that there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner was unable to perform sexual intercourse. The of mobile phone and the laptop have been sent to RFSL Dharamshala for the retrieval of data. The petitioner disclosed rt during the interrogation that photographs were sent by Nikhil Sharma to him on 02.05.2025, and he had forwarded these photographs to the victim's maternal aunt on her asking on 15.06.2025. Nikhil Sharma revealed during the interrogation that he had not uploaded the photographs. He had obtained photographs while chatting on Instagram. Tanuj Katoch revealed during the investigation that four photographs were stolen from his mobile phone. One photograph depicted the status of Tanuj Katoch. Police seized the mobile phone of Tanuj.

Police traced the Instagram ID to a minor, who revealed that this ID was prepared by the petitioner. The petitioner and the minor were using it. The mobile phone was seized by the police, and five Instagram IDs were found to be operated through it, including the disputed ID. The victim revealed that 5 ( 2025:HHC:41287 ) two photographs were taken by the petitioner in Hotel Sahil Plaza. The investigation is continuing, and the results from .

RFSL are awaited. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He would intimidate the witnesses and would abscond if released on bail; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

of

4. I have heard Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional rt Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. No allegation of rape was made by the informant in the FIR. She introduced the allegations of rape in her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The photographs were sent to the petitioner by Nikhil Sharma. The Instagram ID was operated by the minor; the petitioner has no role in the commission of the offence. Therefore, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRM-M-10868 & 20326-2023, titled as Vaneet Sachdeva vs State of Punjab (2023: PHHC:069665), and judgment of 6 ( 2025:HHC:41287 ) High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in Criminal Application No.1130 of 2006, titled as Nikhil vs State of .