Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3107 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3659 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Pandey,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Smt. Kirti Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard Mr. N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ali Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mrs. Priyanka Singh, learned Brief Holder representing the State and perused the record. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Rahul Kumar Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 817 of 2023, under Sections 376, 384, 506 IPC and Section 67 Information Technology Act, police station Kotwali, district Deoria seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, victim lodged the first information report on 02.10.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 384, 506 IPC and Section 67 Information Technology Act against the applicant alleging inter alia that due to her poverty and helplessness, she was working at City Kart Mall, Bhatwaliya Chauraha, Deoria for her livelihood, where the applicant was also working, who took her into influence and deceiving her made obscene photographs of her by promising to marry her and clicked her obscene photographs and started sexually exploiting her. When she protested the dirty act of the applicant then he started sharing her obscene photographs to her family members, well- wishers and other people and also demanded money. For saving her dignity and reputation, the victim kept sending money on the Phonepe No. 8295037844 of the applicant and he shares her obscene photographs from this number. F.I.R. also alleges that applicant has shared obscene photo of many girls before victim. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim and the applicant both are major and they were working together in City Kart Mall, therefore, they came in the contact of each other and decided to marry but due to different castes of both, they could not get married on account of annoyance of their family members. Thereafter, the victim in order to settle her personal score lodged the instant first information report. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 15.11.2023, therefore, he may be released on bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant on the pretext of marriage not only made physical relation with the victim but also taken her inappropriate photographs and forwarded the same to the family members and relatives of the victim and also uploaded the same on social media and, as such, the reputation of the victim has been tarnished and lowered down in the society. It is also pointed out that when the applicant started blackmailing her on the pretext of the said obscene photographs, the victim in order to save her reputation started satisfy the monitory demand of the applicant. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the Investigating OfÏcer has collected sufÏcient material to constitute the offence under Sections 376, 384, 506 IPC and Section 67 Information Technology Act also. Prima facie allegation of the victim is corroborated from the material evidence on record. It is well settled that where the promise to marry is false and the intention of maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the women to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a "misconception of facts" that vitiates the women "consent" u/s 375 IPC. There is no denial of making the obscene video viral by the applicant. The alleged offence is heinous in nature. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. However, considering the detention period of the applicant as noted above, Superintendent of Police, Deoria is directed to ensure production of prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial Court, so that trial of the applicant may be concluded at the earliest. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, trial Court shall record their statements on the same day without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. A copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Deoria and the trial Court for information and compliance. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad