Allahabad High Court
JEETU @ JITESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the applicant had allegedly made the indecent video viral and had a prior similar offence, rendering the bail application without merit.
Summary
The applicant, Jeetu @ Jitesh, was arrested in a case under Sections 64, 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66‑E, 67‑A of the Information Technology Act for allegedly possessing and circulating an indecent video of a victim. The applicant contended that no video had been recovered and that the allegations were false, while the State argued that the video was recovered, handed to the investigating officer, and had been made viral by the applicant, also noting his prior similar offence. The court considered the seriousness of the alleged offence, the alleged viral dissemination of the video, and the applicant’s prior criminal history. Concluding that the bail application lacked merit, the court rejected the bail plea. It directed that the trial proceed expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, stating that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in view of the alleged recovery and viral dissemination of an indecent video.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of no video recovery and alleged falsity of the allegations affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s prior similar criminal history warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 64
- Information Technology Act — s. 66-E, 67-A
Subjects
- bail
- indecent video
- sexual offences
- Information Technology Act
- prior criminal history
- criminal procedure
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15300 of 2026
Jeetu @ Jitesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinab Mishra, Anupam Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.38 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Abhinab Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun Kumar
Mishra, 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.286 of 2025, under Sections 64, 351(3) B.N.S. and 66-E, 67-A I.T. Act,
Police Station Aliganj, District Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge him on
bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no recovery of
any video of the victim whatsoever. The allegations are per se false. The
brother of the victim had handed over the said video to the Investigating
Officer. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been
explained. The applicant is in jail since 28.9.2025 and he is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that there is recovery of indecent video of the victim, which
was made viral by the applicant in the village. The said video has been
handed over by the brother of the victim to the Investigating Officer. The
mobile of the applicant has been sent for forensic analysis.
BAIL No. 15300 of 2026
2
6. It is further argued by learned A.G.A. that the applicant has a criminal
history of a similar nature involving a different victim. As such, he used to
harass minor girls by luring them and video recording the said acts.
Therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that applicant had made viral the indecent video of the victim
coupled by the fact that he was accused in another case of similar nature, 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.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law,
without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…