Anticipatory bail is not a routine measure, especially in cases involving serious allegations of exploitation and threats to privacy; evidence against the petitioner warranted denial of bail.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Bharti V. Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No.14/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 314, 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 356(2), 351(2), 308(2) of the BNS, 2023 and under Sections 66C, 66D, 67, 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II cum Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi.

3. Mrs. Bharti V. Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. She further submits that the FIR has been filed only to put the petitioner under pressure so as to compel him to bow down to the unreasonable demands of the informant. She then submits that there is abnormal delay in lodging the FIR. According to her, the facts have been suppressed by the informant by filing the FIR. She next submits that the informant was in an extra-marital consensual relationship with the petitioner since past 3 years and the petitioner moved to Delhi from Ranchi for his work, which was not like by the informant and due to some personal grudges and grievances against the petitioner, the informant in connivance with her husband and family members has tried to implead the petitioner and his family members in a false case only to feed their ego. She also submits that the petitioner met with the informant at Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess and Trainiing, Lalpur, Ranchi in October, 2021 where he was working as Center Account Head (Accountant) and in due course of time, they developed a close bond as has also been admitted in the FIR. She submits that the relationship was consensual between the informant and the petitioner, which is evident from the Whatsapp communication and photographs. She further submits that the petitioner did not have any social media profile of the informant and he had not posted any morphed photographs or any objectionable photographs of the informant. She then submits that in light of the relationship, they used to go for vacation together and even both were helping each other financially. She submits that the petitioner has transferred sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in the account of the informant and the informant has alleged that she has given Rs.1,10,000/- to the petitioner, which is completely false and misleading. She next submits that the allegation for forcefully entering into the hotel room at Delhi, is not correct, however, the petitioner and informant, both travel on the same flight and the hotel stay was also booked for 6 days jointly. She submits that false allegations are made against the petitioner. The petitioner is a married person. She also draws attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR and Whatsapp chat, contained in Annexure-2 as well as the bank transaction, boarding passes and the documents related to hotel booking. She further submits that the petitioner and informant, both were jointly operating the account and the informant has also password. In these backgrounds, she submits that what has happened between them, that was consensual in nature and false allegations are made against the petitioner and, as such, the anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner.

4. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that in