HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2113 of 2024 Anchit Goel ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Manav Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Criminal Case No. 330 of 2024, State Vs. Anchit Goel and others, in the court of Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is based on FIR No. 111 of 2024, under Section 308 (5), 351 (3), 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Kelakheda, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the prosecution, the applicant and the victim both were in relationship in year 2022. They had established physical relationship also. The applicant had made some intimate videos. Subsequently, both the applicant and the victim stopped talking to each other. But, according to the prosecution, the applicant started demanding money from the victim, threatening her that if money is not paid, he would make those intimate videos viral. After oral demand, 2 according to the prosecution, through some social media also, obscene massages and demands were made to the victim. Finally, the intimate videos were made viral. Thereafter, FIR was lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant did not make any video viral. The applicant and the Manas Mehta were roommate in the hostel. It may be possible that he might have made those intimate videos viral. The applicant did not make those videos public. His telephone record does not reveal it. He had no relation with the victim after September, 2022. The FIR was lodged in the year 2024. It is submitted that co-accused Manik Mehta has been arrested and in his bail order, it was found that from his social media account, some demand of money and obscene chat was recovered. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case. 6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 7. It is really a very serious case. It is a categorical case of the victim that she was in relationship with the 3 applicant, who had made their intimate videos. Those videos were made viral. Now what is being argued on behalf of the applicant is that perhaps his roommate may have made those videos viral that is one part of the story. 8. The victim has told it to the Investigating Officer during investigation that, in fact, when their relationship was over, the applicant had demanded money, threatening her that if money is not paid he would make the videos viral; the videos were made viral. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 10. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 06.01.2025 Jitendra