IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL st ON THE 1 OF JUNE, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21709 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

RIKESH SINGH S/O SHRI SURESH KUMAR LODHI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ARAKSHAK BSF GRAM SANKULI POLICE THANA BASAI DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI V.S.CHAUHAN - ADVOCATE )

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE THANA BASAI DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI LOKENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE)

(BY SHRI R.K.SONI - ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

IA No. 9835 of 2023, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC filed on behalf of complainant for assisting the prosecution in the matter is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is the First application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

Signature Not Verified The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.52/2023 registered at Police Station- Basai, District- Datia (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(Gha), 34 of IPC and Section 67(A)

of IT Act.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.03.2023 prosecutrix aged about

24 years lodged a computerized complaint against the applicant accused and one other co-accused persons namely Mithun. Prosecutrix was working in Babila Toll Tax. On 23.12.2022 prosecutrix got a video of herself in her mobile phone which was prepared by herself. Two years' back prosecutrix has sent the aforesaid video to her boyfriend because she was in love with him. In 2022, present applicant accused solemnized his marriage with another girl. Thereafter, she has stopped talking with him. On 23.12.2022, aforesaid video was sent by co-accused Mithun. The person who sent her obscene video requested her to develop friendship with him. Prosecutrix enquired and got to know that co- accused Mithun use to sent her the video and he also tried to develop friendship with her. He was regularly sending the aforesaid video and he also threatening her that he will viral the video. On her complaint, aforesaid offence was registered. Statements were recorded.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that present applicant has not viral the obscene video of prosecutrix. As per FIR, co- accused Mithun has sent the obscene video and he is the main accused. Applicant is the permanent resident of District- Datia (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tempering with the prosecution case. He is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is prayed that applicant may be Signature Not Verified enlarged on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed present anticipatory bail application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the application should be allowed and by allowing the application it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.

Applicant shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-

section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy/e-copy as per rules.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)

V. JUDGE Vijay