HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2229 of 2024 Faizal ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in SST No. 17 of 2024, which is the basis of FIR No. 582 of 2023, under Sections 376 (3), 384, 504, 506 IPC and Section 5 (l)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the applicant has been sexually exploiting and harassing the victim. On 12.12.2023, the victim was much upset, when her father asked her as to why she is upset, she revealed that the applicant had some photographs, he is demanding Rs.10,000/- for deleting them and also asking her to accompany him. The FIR records that the applicant has also been pressuring the victim to convert her religion. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the victim both were in relationship. This has been admitted by the victim that she came in contact with the applicant through some social media platform. Hence, it is a case fit for bail. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that it is not a case of romantic relationship alone. It is the applicant who has made some obscene photographs of their intimate moments and thereafter, he demanded Rs.10,000/- from the victim threatening her that the videos and photographs would be made viral and those videos and photographs were revealed from the mobile of the applicant. He has WhatsApp chats to that effect. 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 not a case of sexual exploitation alone. It is a case of blackmailing by showing those photographs as alleged. As per the prosecution, the photographs and videos were detected from the mobile of the applicant and it was also detected that he had demanded Rs.10,000/- from the victim. This is what the victim has stated. 3 8. 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. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 09.01.2025 Jitendra