The gravity of accusations and the applicant's custody duration are vital in bail considerations, with serious charges warranting denial while ensuring speedy trials.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. Both the applicants in these two bail applications had filed separate bail applications before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') for grant of bail in Charge-sheet titled UT of J&K v. Ravi Kumar & Anr. and the learned trial court vide common order dated 04.06.2022 dismissed both the applications.

2. Now, the applicants have filed two separate applications for grant of bail. The applicant, namely, Pritam Singh has filed an application bearing No. 273/2022 for grant of bail on the ground that the mother of the prosecutrix had levelled false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner that obscene pictures/photos were sent on her Whatsapp account by the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that he is illiterate and he knows nothing about Whatsapp messages or call to the prosecutrix and had never sent any obscene picture. It is further stated that even the alleged photographs are not annexed with the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. He has raised a defence that his Whatsapp account might have been hacked by someone.

3. The applicant, namely, Ravi Kumar has filed an application bearing No. 406/2022 for grant of bail, thereby stating that he was arrested on 17.05.2021 in a false and frivolous FIR and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague. The applicant was charged on 01.01.2022 and the prosecutrix as well as her mother were examined on 24.02.2022 and 22.04.2022. Both of them have made contradictory statements to each other and there is no incriminating material against the applicant and whole of the story of the prosecution revolves around Suman, Jyoti and Sunny. The applicant has referred to the cross-examination of the prosecutrix as well as her mother to demonstrate that the applicant has been implicated in false and frivolous case.

4. Objections have been filed separately in both the applications and the bail applications are being objected on the ground that the allegations levelled against the applicants are very serious in nature as they were found to be involved in commission of offences under section 363,376, 201 IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, the POCSO Act) and Section 67, 67-A of IT Act. It is further stated that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the bail applications filed by both the applicants. Besides, the official respondent has also narrated the factual aspects of the case.

5. Mr. Arjun Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in Bail Application No. 273/2022 argued that the applicant was arrested on 07.05.2021 and has been in custody for the last more than two and a half years and further there are no allegations against the petitioner that he has committed any offence under section 363 and 376 IPC. He further submitted that the continuous incarceration of the applicant on the vague allegations amount to punishment, as such, the applicant who is having no criminal antecedents deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. Mr. Sachin Dogra learned counsel for the applicant in Bail Application No. 406/2022 argued that the prosecutrix and her mother have made contradictory statements, which clearly shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the commission of offences. He placed reliance upon the judgments of this High Court in Vishal Bhagat & Anr. v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir, Badri Nath v. UT of J&K & Anr. 2023 (3) JKJ 45 [HC], Asgar Ali v. UT of J&K & Anr. 2023 (3) JKJ 52 [HC], Abid Hussain Mir v. UT of J&K, 2023 (6) JKJ 187 [HC] and Devinder Singh & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Anr. 2023 (3) JKJ 5 [HC].

7. Per Contra, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicants have committed offences against the society, as such, they are not entitled to concession of bail.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. A perusal of the record reveals that on 26.03.2021 the mother of the prosecutrix submitted a written