Bailable offences should not preclude anticipatory bail unless exceptional circumstances justify denial; mere criminal history is not sufficient grounds for restraint.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

1. Learned Advocate General and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General have appeared on behalf of the State and have filed communication dated 01.10.2024 of Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh informing disengagement of erring advocate. The communication dated 01.10.2024 is taken on record.

2. In view of the communication dated 01.10.2024 filed by the State, this Court is not proceeding in respect of matter of suppression of material facts.

2-A. Learned Advocate General and learned Additional Advocate General seek for and are granted leave at this stage.

3. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the informant, as well as, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

4. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Mukesh Giri in Case Crime No. 343 of 2024 under Sections 354 , 354C, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 /8 of POCSO Act, Police Station – Moradnagar, District - Ghaziabad.

5. The present case arises out of first information report dated 23.05.2024 lodged on 21:14 hours at Police Station - Moradnagar, Commissionerate Ghaziabad under Sections 354 , 354C, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 7 /8 of POCSO Act, with allegation that informant along with her daughter went to take bath in the river and when they went in the changing room, adjacent to the temple, for changing their clothes, they were subsequently informed that applicant has installed a camera for recording the activities of females in changing room and on the aforesaid basis, it is alleged that the camera in the changing room was for recording the activities of the females while changing their clothes. On the aforesaid basis the first information report was lodged. A recovery memo was prepared, which is at page-17-A of the counter affidavit filed by State on 21.08.2024.

6. The recovery memo is dated 02.06.2024 and as per recovery memo, it is found that the applicant was recording the activities of females while they were changing clothes and CP-Plus NVR and Samsung Mobile Phone was recovered. Although, learned counsel for applicant tried to challenge the recovery memo, however, at this stage, learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of other arguments raised by him, he does not intend to challenge the recovery memo at this stage.

7. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the first information report, there is no allegation against applicant of using any criminal force or assault on the informant or her daughter. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that statement of informant and her daughter was recorded by investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where similar allegations have been made as has been stated in the first information report and there is no allegation of any assault or using criminal force.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although there are allegations of threat against applicant, however, the exact threat extended has neither been stated in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant by referring to statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that primarily the prosecution case rests on recovery of video footages of changing room from Samsung mobile phone and NVR installed in the premises of the temple.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution case the aforesaid recovered videos were containing the recordings of females while changing clothes in the changing room after taking bath in the river. He submits that it is not the case of prosecution that applicant has viraled the aforesaid video recordings to public at large on social media. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that assuming the prosecution case to b