[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
"Wajid vs Unknown on 15 April, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. Dat
or directions
No. e
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:2672
BA 1st No.131 of 2026
"Wajid Vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the
Applicant.
2. Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned AGA, for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the
Complainant.
4. In the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present case
arises from Bail Application filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular
bail for the Applicant - Wajid, who has been accused in FIR
No.135 of 2025, dated 04.11.2025, under Sections 376, 384,
504 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Selaqui, District
Dehradun.
5. The prosecution case, as per the FIR, is that the
Complainant/Informant made an allegation that during the
period of 2016-2017, while she was working at the Salon
allegedly run by the Applicant, he took objectionable
photographs/videos of her, blackmailed her and established
physical relations with her over a long period of last 5-6
years, and also allegedly extorted money from her and
threatened her as well.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter
and FIR is a product of afterthought, exaggeration and
personal vendetta. The main consideration for bail as
advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant is that
allegation are highly belated, allegedly spanning over 5-6
years, yet no plausible explanation for such extraordinary
delay has been offered, which by itself seriously erodes the
credibility of the prosecution story.
7. The victim/informant is a married woman age of
majority, and the FIR is conspicuously silent about any
specific dates, time or particular incidents of alleged forcible
acts. The allegations are vague, omnibus and lacking
particulars, making custodial detention wholly unjustified.
8. There is an admission from the other side that there
was a money transaction between the parties as the
victim/informant required some money for establishing a
Salon for herself, and she required monetary help from the
present Applicant.
9. Learned counsel for the Applicant stresses again that
the victim/informant was already married and had children as
well. The allegations are at the face of it very vague and
without any credible substances and evidence, they become
diluted, and it is apparent that they are altogether false. It is
further said that the videos and photographs, which are said to
be subject of blackmail were never submitted or never
recovered from the possession of the Applicant, which may in
any manner link him with such allegations. It is also pleaded
that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present matter, and
thus, as the matter advanced for trial, the procedure mandates
no further interrogation by the Police and there is no criminal
history which may link the Applicant with any crime, and
thus, requested that the Applicant may be enlarged on bail for
whatever the grounds and conditions the Court set and
imposes for.
10. Learned State Counsel objects to the bail application
with basic contention that the Applicant has exploited the
morality and sentiments of the informant/victim by physically
exploiting her and taking the obscene pictures and photos of
her and extorted money from her.
11. Learned counsel for the victim/informant states that
there is a clear-cut example of what vulnerability a woman
goes through when she is under fear of blackmail by culprit,
who has physically exploited her, who has taken advantage of
her vulnerability, who has taken her obscene photos and
videographs, which forms a tool and weapon to be precise for
extorting money from the victim and hurting her sentiments
mentally and physically. He further submits that matter is
serious as it relates to the personal sanctity of a woman, who
has been exploited physically and mentally. During the course
of trial, the Applicant attempted to threaten the victim, and
thus, it is submitted that the Applicant should not be released
on bail as he may pose threat to the victim/informant and the
other witnesses as well.
12. After hearing the rival submission of the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds the present matter fit
case for bail. Firstly, the FIR has been lodged with a delay of
5-6 years with no plausible explanation as to why there was a
delay in lodging the FIR. The victim is a major woman and as
per the records, there is a money transaction between the
Complainant/victim and the Applicant, which leaves a scope
for many speculation in the present matter and the subject
matter that the prosecution story based upon the photographs
and the videos and that is why the Applicant is alleged to have
illegally taken of informant/victim are not placed before this
Court, not they have been recovered or placed before the
learned Trial Court or made part of the preliminary evidence
during the course of investigation. In the present matter,
charge-sheet has also been filed and there is no criminal
history of the Applicant which may suggests for any further
involvement in the matter.
13. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed
that the Applicant - Wajid, who has been accused in FIR
No.135 of 2025, dated 04.11.2025, under Sections 376, 384,
504 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Selaqui, District
Dehradun, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned court. The Applicant shall
cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the
liberty granted to him. While he is in furlough, he is directed
to observe the following conditions:-
i. The Applicant shall surrender his
passport, if any, before the Superintendent
of the concerned Jail.
ii. The Applicant shall maintain peace
and tranquillity.
iii. The Applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
15.04.2026
Nitesh/
