Bail granted where evidence failed to connect the accused with photographing or disseminating intimate images.

The applicant sought bail in Case Crime No. 45 of 2026, Police Station Kaimari, District Rampur, registered under Sections 333, 70(1) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged, inter alia, that the applicant clicked photographs of the victim during intimate moments with co-accused Ayyan and was connected with their circulation.

The applicant contended that the FIR and the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita contained no specific allegation that he had taken or circulated the photographs.

Photographs filed by the State appeared to be selfies and did not establish the applicant’s involvement.

A similarly situated co-accused, Yunus, had already been granted bail.

The applicant had no criminal history, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had remained in custody since 26 April 2026.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 333, 70(1) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

In deciding bail, the Court applied the established principles requiring consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the evidence, the accused’s prima facie complicity, criminal antecedents, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the need to balance individual liberty against the interests of justice.

It also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, and this Court’s decision in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765, concerning the grant of bail, particularly in the context of overcrowded prisons and delay in criminal trials.

The principle of parity was also applied in view of the bail granted to co-accused Yunus.

The Court found that the material placed by the State did not prima facie establish that the applicant had clicked the photographs or circulated them on social media.

The photographs filed with the compliance affidavit appeared to be selfies and were inconsistent with the allegation that the applicant had taken the photographs.

Further, the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS did not attribute any specific role to the applicant beyond the alleged photographing of the victim with co-accused Ayyan.

The applicant’s case was also supported by parity, as co-accused Yunus, stated to have a similar role, had already been granted bail.

His lack of criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the absence of any continuing requirement for custodial interrogation further supported release on bail.

Balancing these factors against the seriousness of the allegations, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified.

Bail was made subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or evidence, requiring sincere cooperation with the trial without seeking adjournments, prohibiting involvement in further criminal activity, and requiring attendance in accordance with the bond.

The Court further directed verification of the identity, status, residence, mobile numbers and Aadhaar details of the applicant and sureties, and ordered transmission of the release order through the Bail Order Management System and other specified electronic modes.