HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.227 of 2025 Manik Mehta ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Ms. Anmol Sandhu, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 111 of 2024, under Section 308 (5), 351 (3) and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station Kelakhera, 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 FIR, the applicant alongwith the co- accused has offered the victim to befriend them or else she was threatened that a personal video of the victim may be made viral. FIR records that money was also demanded from the victim and subsequently, the video was made viral. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant did not commit any wrong. The co-accused Anchit Goyal had made that intimate video of the victim. The younger brother of the applicant Manas Mehta was a friend of the co-accused Anchit Goyal. They both were roommates in Dehradun. He would submit that nothing 2 was recovered from the mobile phone of the applicant. A chat was allegedly made by the applicant, which was made in the year 2022. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, per se there is no document which would reveal that the applicant had ever demanded any money from the victim. FIR was lodged in the year 2024. The video was not made viral by the applicant. In fact, according to the prosecution itself, it was made viral by the co-accused Anchit Goyal. He would refer to Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit of the State filed on12.06.2025. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that in the year 2022, the applicant has sent a text to the victim. She would submit that according to the victim, multiple times chats were made, but those chats were not preserved by the victim. She admits that according to the instructions, the video was made viral by the co-accused Anchit Goyal. It was prepared by him only. 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. Intimate video was allegedly made by the co-accused Anchit Goyal. He was in relationship with the victim. According to the prosecution, it is the co-accused Anchit Goyal, who made the video viral. As per prosecution itself, there is record of only one text which was allegedly made by the applicant through his Instagram I.D., though it was disputed by the applicant by saying that it was done by his younger brother Manas Mehta, who was roommate of the co-accused Anchit Goyal. When the victim confronted the co-accused Anchit Goyal about such messages, thereafter it was stopped. 3 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 17.06.2025 Jitendra