Point of Law : Petitioner allegedly transmitted the obscene photographs of the prosecutrix to the prosecutrix’s brother bringing him prima facie withing the domain of Section 67 of the IT Act, 2020, this Court does not consider it appropriate to grant bail.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The applicant, vide the present application seeks the grant of bail in relation to FIR No.554/2020, PS Prem Nagar under Sections 323/363/366/376D/199 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2020 submitting to the effect that he has been incarcerated since 27.12.2020 and has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that he is wholly innocent.

2. Notice of the application was issued to the State as well as to the prosecutrix.

3. The prosecutrix was present in person on 22.11.2021 and opposed the bail application of the applicant.

4. The status report dated 11.11.2021 was submitted by the State under the signatures of the SHO, PS Prem Nagar along with the copy of the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of the prosecutrix dated 27.12.2020.

5. The applicant has submitted that the relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix were wholly consensual and that the prosecutrix was in fact his wife and it is because the prosecutrix wanted a mutual consent divorce only two months after the marriage because of a rift between the parties and as the applicant/petitioner was not inclined for a divorce, the FIR in question was lodged. Inter alia the applicant has submitted that though the FIR was registered under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, two other co-accused persons in the instant case are on bail which itself negates the allegations against the applicant.

6. The applicant has further submitted that he and the prosecutrix were married on 29.09.2020 at the Arya Samaj Sanatan Vaidik Sanskar Trust according to Hindu rituals and customs and that the marriage certificate and photographs attached with the application do not show any kind of pressure or force or undue influence upon the prosecutrix and do not show any kind of fear on her face and that she was a major at the time of the marriage and had even stayed with the applicant at his house for about two months after the marriage. Inter alia the applicant submits that the family members of the prosecutrix were informed about their marriage and the prosecutrix was in regular touch with her parents and so were the parents of both sides.

7. The applicant has submitted also that the allegations in relation to the alleged rape and kidnapping attributed to him are wholly false that the charge sheet in the matter has been filed and that there are material contradictions in the version that the prosecution has put forth during the course of the investigation and no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the applicant.

8. As per the averments in the FIR registered on 26.12.2020, it had been stated by the prosecutrix that she was 18 years of age and that in the year 2018 she was studying in Standard IX and from that time, the applicant used to tease her whilst she went to her school and that this continued for about 1½ years, that whenever she went out, the applicant teased her and that in July 2020 they became friends because the applicant used to say that if she did not want a boyfriend, she could make him a friend. She further stated that 2-3 days prior to the marriage (apparently a reference to her own marriage with the applicant) the applicant had sent a photograph of his cut hand and one photo that was sent by the applicant showed a mark on his neck to indicate that he was attempting to hang himself and he had told his friend that the photograph be showed to the prosecutrix and she be told that if she did not meet him, he would die and would falsely implicate her brothers and would also get her humiliated and thus the prosecutrix went to meet the applicant at the 70 ft road near the Amarwati Hospital at about 10 a.m. where the applicant Luxmikant, Vipul, Bala and Mohit were present and the applicant once again showed her the photograph in which he had cut his hand and told her that he would die if she did not accompany him to his house and she was not agr