Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12493 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39082 of 2024 Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Baghel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Devi Dayal,G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / victim. By means of this application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., applicant Jitendra Singh Baghel, who is involved in Case Crime No. 331 of 2024, under Section 69 BNS and Section 67a I.T. Act, police station Trans Yamuna, district Agra seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, the victim lodged the first information report on 17.08.2024 for the alleged offence under Section 69 BNS and Section 67a I.T. Act against the applicant making allegation inter alia that her marriage was solemnized five years ago. About a year ago, construction work of her house was going on, at that time she was living on rent with her husband at the place of applicant. In the meantime, he started talking to her and by luring her in his talk, he said to marry him giving divorce to her husband and on the said pretext forcibly made physical relation with her. He also clicked her photographs and started threatening her to divorce her husband, otherwise he will make her photos viral and later got her divorced from her husband. Now applicant has sent her photographs to her ex- husband. She was living along with her children at her parent's place. The applicant came outside her house and thrown bricks and stones. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim was married lady but she has an extramarital affair with the applicant and her divorce proceeding with her first husband is also going on. There is no evidence on record that any obscene photographs or video has been made viral from the mobile of the applicant and he has not sent any inappropriate message of the victim to anyone. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.09.2024 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the victim vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that victim along with her husband was living on rent in the house of the applicant. Gradually, the applicant in order to satisfy his lust extended his intimacy with victim and made physical relation with her. The applicant with a view to blackmail the victim also taken her inappropriate obscene/nude photographs and on the basis of the same, he mounted pressure upon the victim to give divorce to her husband on the pretext that he will marry her. It is further submitted that the applicant had taken a sum of Rs. 4 lacs also from the victim and in this regard, a compromise was done and a written affidavit has been executed between the parties concerned. Much emphasis has been given by contending that during investigation, when Investigating Officer went to the house of the applicant for collecting his mobile, Virendra, who is brother of the applicant-Jitendra had given mobile phone of the applicant to the Investigating Officer, which was examined and two nude photographs of the victim and some WhatsApp chats were recovered and the said obscene video of the victim was also made viral by the mobile no. 8057808580 of the applicant. During investigation, statement of Mahesh, husband of the victim, was also recorded, in which he has stated inter alia that from the mobile number of the applicant, inappropriate messages and photographs were forwarded on his mobile phone. This clearly shows that intention of the applicant was bad since beginning, hence benefit of the plea that victim was consenting with the applicant cannot be extended to the applicant because it is a clear-cut case of consent under misconception of fact. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that applicant on the pretext of solemnizing marriage with the victim has made physical relation with her, he has also taken her obscene/nude photographs, got her divorced from her ex-husband and has also made the same viral, which shows that applicant in order to satisfy his lust was working in pre-planed manner with bad intention since beginning. 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". The offence is heinous in nature. The charge-sheet has also been filed under the Information Technology Act. 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 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. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad