Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37153 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3954 of 2025 Applicant :- Ijinder Bedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Sharma,Surendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hem Pratap Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2024, under Sections 69, 316(2), 308(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station - Crossing Republik, Rural (Commissionerate, Ghaziabad), District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be involved in litigation with his erstwhile wife as both had fallen apart but he has yet not been divorced and so was the case of the informant herein as the litigation was going on with her erstwhile husband. Both being estranged started living with each other. The applicant is stated to have taken certain indecent photographs of her and even demanded money from her and blackmailed her to make the said indecent photographs viral on social media. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the corporeal relationship has been made between them out of their consent as the applicant and the victim had started living as live-in- partners. Both are mature persons having children from their earlier marriage.It is a clear cut case of misuse of process of law. 7. 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that from the mobile of the applicant, certain photographs of the victim have been recovered and the applicant had also sent them to the mobile of her brother. 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no recovery of any photographs from the mobile of her brother, as such, he is entitled for bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and also the fact that both of them are estranged from their spouses and were living as live-in-partners and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Ijinder Bedi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 17.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad