JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of bail in case FIR No.01/2021 for offences under Section 420, 292, 506 IPC and Section 67-A Information Technology Act, 2000, registered with Police Station, Drass. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, as is reflected from the police report annexed to the objections filed by the respondent, is that on 09.02.2021, the complainant lodged a report with the police alleging therein that the accused/petitioner had made promise of marriage to her and during the currency of their love affair, the accused/petitioner used to make video calls to her. It was further alleged that the accused/petitioner enticed her to exhibit her private parts during the video calling and because the complainant was in love with the accused/petitioner, she succumbed to the requests of the petitioner. It was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner/accused threatened to make these videos viral in case she did not pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- to him. The complainant has further alleged that, being a poor girl, she was unable to meet the demands of the petitioner/accused, as such, she lodged the report before the police. 3. On the basis of the above complaint, the police registered FIR No.01/2021 for offences under Section 420, 292, 506 IPC and Section 67-A Information Technology Act, 2000 and started investigation of the case. During the investigation of the case, the accused/petitioner was taken into custody, statements of some of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the mobile cell phone (Samsung), produced by sister-in-law of the complainant, was seized. The statements of the complainant, her brother and sister-in-law in terms of Section 164-A Cr.P.C. were recorded. As per the investigation, the aforesaid offences are stated to have been established against the accused/petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings filed by the parties, report of the police and the Case Diary. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the complainant were involved in a love affair and due to development of certain differences between the two, a false and frivolous case has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the complainant were involved in a love affair and due to development of certain differences between the two, a false and frivolous case has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner. It is also contended that on the face of it, the offence under Section 67-A of IT Act is not made out from the allegations made in the complaint, inasmuch as, as per complainant's own case, the accused/petitioner has only threatened to make the obscene video clips viral if he is not paid the ransom money, which means that as of now the video clips have not been made viral by the petitioner. The learned counsel has further argued that the investigation of the case is almost complete and the petitioner is not alleged to have committed any offence which carries death sentence or imprisonment for life, as such, he cannot be denied the concession of bail as a measure of punishment. 6. Learned ASGI, appearing for the respondent, has contended that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, inasmuch as he has exploited a young girl, videographed her private parts and made the same viral. According to learned ASGI, such like offences are required to be dealt with sternly and the concession of bail to accused in such like case should not be extended as a matter of course. 7. A perusal of the Case Dairy reveals that the accused/petitioner has been arrested on 17.02.2021 and the statements of most of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded either under Section 161 Cr. P. C or under Section 164 Cr. P. C. The mobile cell phone that has been allegedly used by the accused/petitioner to record obscene video clips of the complainant has already been seized. It is also mentioned in the Case Diary that the accused/petitioner has already deleted the video clips which are now required to be retrieved. 8. So far as the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are concerned, none of these offences carry punishment beyond seven years and, in fact, excepting offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 67-A IT Act, all other offences are bailable in nature. 9. 8. So far as the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are concerned, none of these offences carry punishment beyond seven years and, in fact, excepting offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 67-A IT Act, all other offences are bailable in nature. 9. Apart from the above, it is an admitted case of the complainant that she was deeply in love with the petitioner, as such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of love affair having gone sour which has resulted in lodging of the FIR, cannot be ruled out. 10. Having regard to the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the view that the concession of bail cannot be declined to the petitioner solely on the ground that the offences alleged to have been committed by him are grave in nature, particularly when the allegations are yet to be established. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to the following conditions : (i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.H.O of the concerned police station; (ii) That he shall appear before the concerned Investigating Agency, as and when required; (iii) That he shall not leave the territorial limits of Union Territory of Ladakh without the prior permission from the Investigating Officer; (iv) That he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.