The court granted bail based on the significant delay in FIR registration and lack of substantial evidence against the applicant, emphasizing the discretionary nature of bail decisions.

This first application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.40/2023, dated 09.07.2023 registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana Harda, District-Harda (M.P.) for commission of offence under Sections 376(3), 506, 120-B, 34 of IPC, Sections 3/4, 16/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 67, 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

Applicant is in detention since 10.07.2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 09.07.2023, 17 years & 3 months old prosecutrix lodged FIR stating that she is a student of Class-XII. Her date of birth is 07.04.2006. She is 17 years & 3 months old. It was alleged that on 5th May, 2019, she had gone to attend one marriage at the house of Rohit Pal.

Balkrishna Tiwari came and told that she is being called by Ritik Gaur. At this, at around 12 noon, she along with Balkrishna went to the house of Balkrishna.

There, Ritik on the basis of false promise of marriage, established physical relations with her and Balkrishna Tiwari and Rohit Pal prepared video of that act. Thereafter, by showing that video to her, they threatened that if she ever disclosed the incident to anyone they will make the video viral. It is alleged that Ritik's father Shivshankar forwarded her obscene video with Ritik on Suvichar Swachata whats-app group and phone of Vijay Upkare and others. When her father came to know about the viral video, she narrated the entire incident to him. FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed for commission of the aforesaid offences.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has not committed any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that FIR has been lodged almost after a delay of four years. It is further submitted that as per the FSL report, no video regarding establishing of physical relations between prosecutrix & accused Ritik Gaur (present applicant) could have been retrieved, therefore, there is nothing on record to show that any obscene video of the sexual act with the prosecutrix was ever prepared and later, was made viral. There is no legal and admissible evidence against the present applicant except the oral report. It is further submitted that the two families i.e. the family of the prosecutrix and the family of the accused is at logger head and they are in habit of registering FIR against each-other on this or that ground. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused namely Balkrishna @ Pappu Tiwari & Rohit @ Chotu have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.03.2024 & 19.03.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9992 of 2024 & M.Cr.C. No.11494 of 2024 respectively. On the aforesaid pretext, it is prayed that applicant may be released on bail.

4. O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector have opposed grant of bail and have submitted that after FIR of the present case, another FIR for commission of offence under Section 354 of IPC was got registered against the present applicant and he has been convicted in that matter.

5 . In the case, FSL report has already been received. Undisputedly, allegations are against the present applicant, but having taken into consideration the inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR and in absence of any obscene video and other facts & circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a case in which present applicant may be released on bail. Consequently, this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant, stands allowed.

6 . I t is directed that applicant - Ritik be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial