HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19430 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. The instant second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 817 of 2023, under Sections 376, 384, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3659 of 2024. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the victim lodged the first information report on 02.10.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 384, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 Information Technology Act against the applicant alleging inter alia that due to her poverty and helplessness, she was working at Citykart Mall, Bhatwaliya Chauraha, Deoria for her livelihood, where the applicant was also working, who by influencing and deceiving her on the pretext of marriage clicked her obscene photographs and started sexually exploiting her. When she protested the dirty act of the applicant, he started sharing her obscene photographs to her family members, well-wishers and other people and also demanded money. For saving her dignity and reputation, the victim kept sending money Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Prabodh Dubey, Ashok Kumar Giri Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) on the Phonepe No. 8295037844 of the applicant and he shares her obscene photographs from this number. F.I.R. also alleges that applicant has shared obscene photo of many girls before victim. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that statement of the victim has been recorded as PW-1 on 15.04.2025 before the trial court. Referring the statement of the victim it is pointed out that she in her examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution case, but when she was cross examined on 29.04.2025, she did not support the prosecution case and has stated inter alia that when marriage of applicant Rahul was settled with Kajal Verma, then she in order to settle her personal score shared her photographs with him to the mobile phones of her sisters, brothers and cousins because they were also willing for her marriage with Rahul. She has also stated that the applicant did not make physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage and while making physical relation he did not take her obscene photographs. On the strength of aforesaid evidence it is further argued that there is bleak chance of conviction of the applicant who is languishing in jail since 15.11.2023, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that examination-in-chief of the victim was recorded on 15.04.2025 but her cross-examination was done on 29.04.2025 after about two weeks, hence possibility of winning over the victim from the side of the accused cannot be ruled out. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that victim has not supported the prosecution case in her cross-examination and out of eleven prosecution witnesses, till date only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court while considering the bail application of the applicant is not meticulously examining and recording any finding about the statement of the victim (PW-1). Trial of the applicant is also going on at a very slow pace and there is no likelihood of conclusion BAIL No. 19430 of 2025 2 of trial in near future. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of statement of the victim recorded before the trial court and stage of the trial as noted above, this Court is of the view that prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Rahul Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 11, 2025 Kashifa BAIL No. 19430 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad