1] These bail applications have arisen out of the same crime number 405/2019 of the same police station Palasiya, Indore District Indore, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2] M.Cr.C. No.24410/2021 filed by Shweta W/o Swapnil Jain and M.Cr.C. No.16340/2021 by Monika D/o Heeralal Yadav are the 1st bail applications and M.Cr.C. No.27145/2021by Shweta W/o Vijay Jain is the second bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The earlier application of applicant Shweta W/o Vijay Jain was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 21/12/2020.
3] The applicants are facing trial for an offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 384, 506, 385, 354-C, 370(1)(3), 389(b), 467, 468, 471,
120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66-E, 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Palasiya, Indore District Indore in Crime no.405/2019. The applicants Shweta W/o Swapnil Jain and Shweta Vijay Jain are in custody since 19/09/2019 and Monika Yadav is in jail since 01/10/2019.
4] In brief, the facts giving rise to the present bail applications are that a written complaint was filed by the complainant Harbhajan Singh, the Superintending Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Indore on 17/09/2019 to the effect that he is the resident of Indore and is being blackmailed by the accused Arti Dayal and others on the ground that if he does not pay them Rs.3 Crore, they would make his certain intimate videos viral. The names of the women in question are said to be Arti Dayal and Seema Soni whose real name is Monika Yadav, the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.16340/2021. It is alleged that initially these two women asked him for some help and after he helped them, they started chatting on the whats-app and also sent certain intimate emojis of kisses, their personal photographs and finally entered into intimate relationship with him thus, slowly, they took him in their confidence and started asking him to do some illegal acts and started blackmailing him. They also sent him some video clips on 04/09/2019 and threatened him, and on 10/09/2019 they called him to Bhopal and asked for Rs.3 crores but finally they reduced the amount to Rs. 2 Crore. On this complaint, initially the FIR was registered in the name of ‘Arti Dayal and others’ and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against (1) Arti Dayal, Monika Yadav, (2) Shweta @ Ranu W/o Vijay Jain, (3) Shweta W/o Swapnil Jain, (4) Barkha W/o Amit Soni and (5) Omprakash, all the residents of Bhopal.
5] Counsel for the applicant appearing in M.Cr.C. No.24410/2021 for Shweta W/o Swapnil Jain has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as apart from the memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no evidence available on record to connect her with the alleged offence and considering the aforesaid fact, even the extension of remand was not granted by the Judicial Magistrate. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and her name has appeared in the memos given by the other co-accused persons Monika, Arti Dayal and Shweta Vijay Jain only. It is further submitted that despite being in jail for last around one year and ten months, having arrested on 19/09/2019, there is no progress in trial and infact further proceedings of the trial have been stayed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.2356/2020 vide order dated 11/12/2020. The said revision has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the order passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court directing the State to provide electronic documents seized from the accused persons. Counsel has further submitted that the applicant is languishing in
jail since long and also suffering from various diseases, the documents regarding which have also been placed on record which also include an auto immune disorder, thyroid, stones in her gall bladder and also a childhood skin disease Vitiligo which has no cure which has made her skin very sensitive. It is further submitted that considering the total number of witnesses, which is 57, to be examined by the prosecution during the course of trial, it is likely to take sufficient long time. It is further submitted that the applicant was involved in a related case which has been lodged by the father of the co-accused Monik Yadav registered at crime No.2/2019 by CID, Bhopal under Section 370, 370-A, 120-B of the IPC and was registered as S.T. No.83/2020,she has already been discharged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 12/02/2020. Hence, it is submitted that the bail application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail.
6] Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant appearing in M.Cr.C. No.16340/2021 has also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 01/09/2019 and till date, there is no progress in trial and the entire case is based on the oral allegations of the complainant and the intimate video clips which have not been provided to the applicant and the proceedings of the trial Court have been stayed. It is further submitted that the applicant herself is a victim and has been lured by the co-accused persons in their conspiracy to blackmail the complainant by making false promises. It is further submitted that the final conclusion of the trial is also going to take a long time looking to the number of witnesses to be examined.

7] Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel appearing for Shweta W/o Vijay Jain in M.Cr.C. No.27145/20201 has submitted that her first application was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 21/12/2020, with a liberty to renew her prayer after she obtains the electronic documents relied upon by the petitioner and in possession of the investigating agency SIT. Counsel has submitted that in CRR No.2356/2020, this Court vide its order dated 11/12/2020 has already stayed the order passed by the trial Court on 04/12/2020 wherein it was directed that the electronic documents relied upon by the prosecution be furnished to the accused persons. It is submitted that the applicant has been made a victim of media trial only and the case is also termed as ‘Honey Trap’ which nomenclature does not find place in Cr.P.C. or IPC. It is further submitted that in the case registered at crime No.2/2019 by CID, Bhopal under Section 370, 370-A, 120-B of the IPC and was registered as S.T. No.83/2020 by the co-accused Monika Yadav against co-accused persons of the present case, regarding her exploitation and human trafficking etc., the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and infact the aforesaid case was also lodged only with a view to substantiate the false implication of the applicant as has been stated by the father of co-accused Monika Yadav, Heeralal Yadave who is examined as PW/1 in the aforesaid case and who, in para 14 of his cross examination, has admitted that the higher police officers have asked him to lodged the false report against the other co-accused persons in the present case and
upon lodging such report, his daughter would be made a prosecution witness and she would also be released. Counsel has relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in CRA No.551/2016 dated 01/07/2016, wherein taking note of the fact that since the accused is in jail since four years and the trial i.e. the Sessions Trial has been stayed by the Supreme Court itself, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Thus, it is submitted that in the present case also as this Court has already stayed the trial, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
8] Ms. Archana Kher, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out as the applicants are involved in a heinous offence of blackmailing. It is submitted that the complainant was enticed by the applicants by luring him with their sexual overtures and once his video clips were recorded by them, he was blackmailed for a sum of Rs.3 Crore which was reduced to Rs.2 crores which is still a huge amount and in such circumstances and looking to the gravity of the offence, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is further submitted that it is not correct to say that this Court has stayed the trial Court proceedings in CRR No.2356/2020, which has been filed by the State and which is also apparent from the order dated 11/12/2020 passed by this Court wherein it is held that only the operation of the order dated 04/12/2020 which is under challenge in the said revision has been stayed. Thus, it is submitted that the accused persons are taking false plea that the trial has come to a halt by the order of this court and thus, it is submitted that they are not entitled to be released on bail.
9] In rebuttal, Shri Gurjar, counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 04/12/2020 passed by the trial Court wherein it is clearly mentioned by the learned Judge of the trial Court that since there is a stay of the operation of the order passed by the trial Court, hence, till the next date of hearing the further proceedings are stayed. Counsel has further submitted that if the video clips are not supplied to the applicant, they cannot defend their case in the trial court..
10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11] From the record this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the applicants are mostly based on electronic record viz., whatsapp chats, telephonic conversations, video clips etc. This court also finds that this Court, in CRR No.2356/2020 has only stayed the order dated 04.12.2020 whereby the learned Judge of the trial Court has directed the prosecution to provide the accused persons the electronic record on which the prosecution has heavily relied upon and this court has not stayed the further proceedings of the trail court. But at this juncture, it cannot be said that the electronic record which is also the part and parcel of the charge sheet is of no importance to the applicants and they would not be prejudiced if the said documents are not provided to them.
12] On a query raised by this court from Ms. Kher, learned Dy. Advocate General, whether any action has been taken by the government against the
 complainant Harbhajan Singh, the Superintending Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Indore, it is informed that he has been suspended, transferred from Indore and a departmental enquiry has also been initiated against him. 13]    In the considered opinion of this court the complainant Harbhajan Singh has brazenly misused the privileges of his post and has allowed himself to be the soft target of the unscrupulous persons. He chatted salaciously with the applicants, allowed himself the luxury of their intimate company and when things began going out of his control, he started crying wolf. There is no doubt that the applicants have committed an immoral, unethical and demeaning act, unbecoming of the dignity of women but they cannot be solely held responsible for their act as the complainant is also responsible for his act in the same manner, or probably more than the applicants, for what has transpired between them. In the considered opinion of this court, virtues of a high office are, higher standard of integrity, morality and upright character and these qualities have to be maintained throughout once carrier and life, and if you forsake these virtues and allow yourself to be exploited, you are the only one to be blamed for.
14] This court also finds that although, in the order dated 14.12.2020, the trial court has stated that the case is being stayed as per the stay order of this court passed in CRR No.2356/2020, but there appears to be no efforts on the part of the prosecution also to apprise the trial court that this court has not stayed the further proceedings of the trial.
15] In such circumstances, taking note of nature of allegations and also that the applicants are in jail since 19.09.2019 and have spent around 22 months in incarceration, and the trial has not even begun as the charges are yet to be framed and as many as 57 witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this court, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail as the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time on account of COVID-19 as well.
16] Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applications filed by the applicants are allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
17] It is also observed that if the applicants are found in any of the criminal activities, after their release on bail, then the present bail order shall stand cancelled without further reference to this Court; and the State / prosecution will be free to arrest the accused in the present case also.
Signed copy of the order be kept in M.Cr.C. No.24410/2021 and copy whereof be placed in connected case.
Certified copy as per rules.