Bail Denied Where Prima Facie Evidence Exists of Sexual Relations Obtained Through Blackmail and Recorded Video Exposure.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 554/2020 (PS Prem Nagar) involving charges of rape, kidnapping, and criminal intimidation, alongside offenses under the POCSO and IT Acts.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant blackmailed the prosecutrix using a recorded video call of her bathing to coerce her into sexual intercourse and a forced marriage at an Arya Samaj Mandir.

The applicant's previous bail application was dismissed on March 18, 2026, after the court reviewed a video clip recovered from a mobile phone.

The applicant contended that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the incident, that she did not support the prosecution's case in her testimony, and that the video was recorded and shared by the prosecutrix herself.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the allegations of coerced sexual relations through blackmail and the existence of incriminating digital evidence.

2. Whether the disputed age of the prosecutrix and the alleged subsequent marriage mitigate the offense of rape for the purpose of granting bail.

The court considered provisions under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376D, and 199 of the IPC, Section 12 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67 of the IT Act regarding gang rape, kidnapping, and the distribution of sexually explicit material.

The court applied general principles governing the grant of regular bail, focusing on the gravity of the offense, the nature of the evidence (specifically digital evidence under the IT Act), and the conduct of the accused in allegedly blackmailing the victim to establish non-consensual sexual relations.

The court rejected the applicant’s contention that the prosecutrix had recorded and circulated the bathing video herself, finding such a claim implausible.

While the applicant argued the prosecutrix was a major based on her cross-examination (citing a birth date of 05.09.2002), the court noted that the prosecution relied on a birth certificate indicating she was a minor and argued the sexual encounters began earlier.

The court emphasized the nature of the allegations: that the applicant used the video clip to blackmail the victim into sexual relations and a forced marriage, after which the victim was allegedly pressured into the flesh trade by the applicant's mother.

Given the severity of the allegations in the FIR and the prosecutrix's chief examination, the court found the evidence regarding the coercive video sufficient to deny bail.

The court dismissed the bail application (BAIL APPLN. 2425/2026) and the accompanying application (CRL.M.A. 18812/2026) and directed that a copy of the order be transmitted to the Jail Superintendent to inform the accused.