Allahabad High Court

RAVI KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The bail applications were dismissed as they were found devoid of merit and the applicant's alleged misconduct warranted denial of bail.

Summary

Ravi Kumar was charged under IPC sections 452, 376, 506, 507 and IT Act section 67 for allegedly posting an indecent video of the victim on Facebook. He filed three successive bail applications, each asserting innocence, delay in FIR filing, and cooperation with the trial. The State opposed bail, contending that the video was posted and made viral, constituting a serious offence and a misuse of his influence. The High Court examined the applications and found no new ground for relief, noting the applicant's alleged misconduct and the ongoing trial. Consequently, the Court held the bail applications devoid of merit and rejected them, while directing the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations of posting an obscene video on social media.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the applicant's claim of innocence constitute a ground for bail.
Whether the applicant's alleged misuse of clout and the nature of the offence preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 452, 506, 507
Information Technology Act — s. 67

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
IPC
IT Act
Section 67
social media
viral video
Article 21
trial delay
sexual offence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15222 of 2026

Ravi Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Somit Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.15 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Rajnish Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Somit Shukla,
learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.74 of 2024, under Sections 452, 376, 506, 507 IPC and 67 IT Act, Police
Station Narakhi, District Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.3.2025, passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.27762 of 2024 and the following order was
passed:

"1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjeev

Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State

Law Officer and perused the record. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the

applicant today is taken on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, under Sections 452, 376, 506, 507

I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Narakhi, District Firozabad, during the

pendency of trial.
BAIL No. 15222 of 2026
2

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has

been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is

next stated that the FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

The allegations are per se false as the video was seen by the husband of the victim only

and no other person has seen the said video, as such it cannot be termed as viral as viral

video has to be seen by number of persons. It is next stated that there is no recovery of any

video, rather the video is stated to have been deleted by the victim and there is only screen

shot which was provided to the Investigating Officer by the husband of the victim. The

applicant is languishing in jail for more than one year and he is cooperating in trial.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently

opposed the bail on the ground that the applicant had posted the said indecent video on

Facebook and once it is posted and seen by a person, it amounts to having been made viral

on social media. There is nothing on record to suggest as to how many persons have seen

it, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail as the applicant has misused his clout and

posted the indecent video on social media for the reasons best known to him only.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that

the applicant had posted the indecent video of the victim on the social media i.e. Facebook

and the screen shot of the said video being posted on the said platform which stands

mentioned in the FIR itself, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

7. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided

expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme

Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain

and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the

parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have

no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."

5. The second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated
23.07.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24826 of 2025,
and the following order was passed:

"1.. List has been revised.
BAIL No. 15222 of 2026
3

2. Heard Sri Somit Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A.

for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. This is the second bail application on behalf of applicant. The first one was rejected by

this Court vide order dated 19.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27762

of 2024.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.74 of

2024, under Sections 452, 376, 506, 507 IPC and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Narakhi,

District Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, there are several

contradictions in the statement of PW-1, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The

applicant is in jail since 05.03.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the

applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact

that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application and the trivial

contradictions, if any, cannot be taken into consideration at this stage coupled with the fact

that the trial is going on, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided

expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the

recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab;

2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if

there is no legal impediment.

10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by

the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall

have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that, as a new ground, only
four witnesses have been examined to date. The trial is moving at a snail's
pace; as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant, enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stand violated. The applicant is in jail
BAIL No. 15222 of 2026
4

since 05.03.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and into consideration the
fact that the main ground for rejection of the applicant's bail was that he had
misused his clout, video-recorded the said act, and posted it on Facebook,
making it viral and thus maligning the victim, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law,
if there is no legal impediment.

10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…