Bail App No.24/202 vs Ut Of Ladakh Through Sho P/Drass ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 239 j&K/2

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                             AT SRINAGAR

                                                         Reserved on:24.02.2021
                                                          Pronounced on:26.02.2021

                                                               Bail App No.24/2021
                      Ghulam Mohammad
                                                                      ... Petitioner(s)
                                    Through: -    Mr. B. A. Bashir, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
                                                  Falak Bashir, Advocate

                      Vs.

                      UT of Ladakh through SHO P/Drass District Kargil
                                                                     ...Respondent(s)
                                        Through: -Mr. T. M. Shamsi, ASGI

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE


                                                 JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner has filed the instant application for

grant of bail in case FIR No.01/2021 for offences under

Section 420, 292, 506 IPC and Section 67-A Information

Technology Act, 2000, registered with Police Station, Drass.

2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, as is

reflected from the police report annexed to the objections

filed by the respondent, is that on 09.02.2021, the

complainant lodged a report with the police alleging therein

that the accused/petitioner had made promise of marriage

to her and during the currency of their love affair, the

accused/petitioner used to make video calls to her. It was

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT further alleged that the accused/petitioner enticed her to 2021.02.26 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

exhibit her private parts during the video calling and

because the complainant was in love with the

accused/petitioner, she succumbed to the requests of the

petitioner. It was further alleged in the complaint that the

petitioner/accused threatened to make these videos viral in

case she did not pay an amount of Rs.80,000/ to him. The

complainant has further alleged that, being a poor girl, she

was unable to meet the demands of the petitioner/accused,

as such, she lodged the report before the police.

3) On the basis of the above complaint, the police

registered FIR No.01/2021 for offences under Section 420,

292, 506 IPC and Section 67-A Information Technology Act,

2000 and started investigation of the case. During the

investigation of the case, the accused/petitioner was taken

into custody, statements of some of the prosecution

witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C and

the mobile cell phone (Samsung), produced by sister-in-law

of the complainant, was seized. The statements of the

complainant, her brother and sister-in-law in terms of

Section 164-A Cr. P. C were recorded. As per the

investigation, the aforesaid offences are stated to have been

established against the accused/petitioner.

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.26 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the pleadings filed by the parties, report of the

police and the Case Diary.

5) It has been contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner and the complainant were

involved in a love affair and due to development of certain

differences between the two, a false and frivolous case has

been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner. It is

also contended that on the face of it, the offence under

Section 67-A of IT Act is not made out from the allegations

made in the complaint, inasmuch as, as per complainant's

own case, the accused/petitioner has only threatened to

make the obscene video clips viral if he is not paid the

ransom money, which means that as of now the video clips

have not been made viral by the petitioner. The learned

counsel has further argued that the investigation of the

case is almost complete and the petitioner is not alleged to

have committed any offence which carries death sentence

or imprisonment for life, as such, he cannot be denied the

concession of bail as a measure of punishment.

6) Learned ASGI, appearing for the respondent, has

contended that the petitioner has committed a heinous

offence, inasmuch as he has exploited a young girl,

videographed her private parts and made the same viral. MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.26 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

According to learned ASGI, such like offences are required

to be dealt with sternly and the concession of bail to

accused in such like case should not be extended as a

matter of course.

7) A perusal of the Case Dairy reveals that the

accused/petitioner has been arrested on 17.02.2021 and

the statements of most of the prosecution witnesses have

been recorded either under Section 161 Cr. P. C or under

Section 164 Cr. P. C. The mobile cell phone that has been

allegedly used by the accused/petitioner to record obscene

video clips of the complainant has already been seized. It

is also mentioned in the Case Diary that the

accused/petitioner has already deleted the video clips

which are now required to be retrieved.

8) So far as the offences alleged to have been committed

by the petitioner are concerned, none of these offences

carry punishment beyond seven years and, in fact,

excepting offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 67-A

IT Act, all other offences are bailable in nature.

9) Apart from the above, it is an admitted case of the

complainant that she was deeply in love with the petitioner,

as such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner

that it is a case of love affair having gone sour which has

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.26 13:19 resulted in lodging of the FIR, cannot be ruled out. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

10) Having regard to the foregoing circumstances, this

Court is of the view that the concession of bail cannot be

declined to the petitioner solely on the ground that the

offences alleged to have been committed by him are grave

in nature, particularly when the allegations are yet to be

established. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the

petitioner is admitted to bail subject to the following

conditions:

(i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the S. H. O of the concerned police station.

(ii) That he shall appear before the concerned Investigating Agency, as and when required;

(iii) That he shall not leave the territorial limits of Union Territory of Ladakh without the prior permission from the Investigating Officer;

(iv) That he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

Srinagar, 26.02.2021 "Bhat Altaf, PS"

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.26 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document