- (1.) The applicant is an employee of Rohilkhand University. He is alleged to have committed an odious crime through an indecent exhibition of the victim's photograph that is not only contemptible but also dangerous to her reputation. He has also tried to blackmail her by putting her reputation to stake. It became so distressing for the victim that it exceeded all levels of ordinary tolerant human behaviour and therefore the victim decided to commit suicide. This bail application has been moved contending primarily that no ingredient of abetting the offence of suicide is available so as to charge the applicant under Section 306 I.P.C. along with the other provisions and the applicant having been implicated falsely, he deserves to be bailed out. The prosecution version discloses that the applicant is well versed in the technique of Computer operations and he was employed in the University where taking undue advantage of certain female students, the applicant took some photographs and uploaded them on a computer website which is being utilised by him to blackmail them including the victim after her marriage. The photographs depicted are allegedly indecent.
(2.) A first information report was lodged by the victim on 14.12.2010 with the aforesaid allegations that the applicant who is a Computer Operator in the Pharmacy Department of the University, had surreptitiously prepared some clips when the victim used to visit his residence ,as the father of the victim and the accused are well known to each other. Having prepared those clips he started blackmailing the victim, and after her marriage, tried to extract money from her threatening her with dire consequences. The applicant came to lodge the F.I.R. only after her in-laws viewed the said clipping and feeling humiliated she decided to commit suicide. She however gave up the idea on persuasion as per her statement recorded later on. Sri Kamal Krishna learned counsel for the applicant submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the applicant can be tried for the offence under the Indecent Representation of Women (Provisions) Act, 1986 which otherwise is not attracted in the present case, the same is a bailable offence and that the applicant is entitled for bail. He submits that the provisions of Section 306 I.P.C are nowhere attracted and to the contrary the ingredients of Section 309 I.P.C. are reflected. The contention is that in view of the allegations of the victim in her statement the applicant cannot be prosecuted. Sri Kamal Krishna relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the recent case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., 2010 1 JT 17 contends that the conviction of the application under the said provision is almost impossible.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail and he submits that in view of the fact that the applicant is an employee of the University and has behaved in a manner that he does not deserve any bail as the statement of the witnesses indicates that the applicant has indulged in such activities with other females in the University. Sri Neeraj Tiwari learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently urged that granting of bail would be allowing mis use of his talent to indulge in such activities in future. It is also contended that the evidence that has been collected during investigation leaves no room for doubt that the applicant is habitual and therefore bail should not be granted. It is further submitted by him that the overt and covert acts of the applicant can lead to further complications and suicidal attempts and therefore the ingredients for the offences for which he is charged are available. Sri Kamal Krishna learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a married person and has a child and he has been implicated on account of internal politics of the University and therefore in view of the submissions raised bail should be granted.;