Allahabad High Court
ROCKYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected; the accused is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, Rocky, sought bail in a criminal case (Cr. No. 0068 of 2025) alleging that he recorded an indecent video of a married woman and threatened to circulate it. The prosecution presented the victim’s statement and a video recovered from the applicant’s mobile, asserting the allegations are true. The applicant’s counsel argued the allegations are false, that the video was not circulated, and that he would cooperate with the trial. The court examined the victim’s corroboration and the recovered video, finding the bail application without merit. Consequently, the bail was denied, with the court directing an expeditious trial in line with Supreme Court precedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the presence of an indecent video recovered from the accused's mobile and the victim's corroboration justify denial of bail.
- Whether the accused’s claim of non-circulation and alleged falsity of allegations affect bail eligibility under the relevant IPC and IT Act provisions.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 333, 351(3), 64
- Information Technology Act — s. 66
Subjects
- bail
- indecent video
- cybercrime
- IPC
- IT Act
- threat
- victim
- expeditious trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19978 of 2025
Rocky
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kailash Prasad Pandey, Shantanu
Pandey, Shashi Kant Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Om Prakash Kannaujia, Ravi
Shankar Kanojiya
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 109 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kailash Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ravi
Shankar Kanojiya, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.M.
Yadav, 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. 0068 of 2025, under Sections 123, 64, 351(3) and 333 BNS and 66 I.T.
Act, Police Station Magorra, District Mathura, with the prayer to enlarge
him on bail.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have video recorded the indecent act committed
with the victim and had threatened her to make it viral on social media.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the allegations are per se
false. The applicant has not circulated the video anywhere. Although one
video was recovered from his mobile but he has nothing to do with the said
offence.
BAIL No. 19978 of 2025
2
6. The victim is a married lady aged about 35 years, while applicant is a 27
years old youth.
7. The applicant is in jail since 1.3.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial.
In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
8. The statement of the victim has been recorded and she has supported the
prosecution story. The said video has been recovered from the mobile of the
applicant and was found indecent. The victim has deposed against the
applicant and there is a recovery of indecent video of the victim from the
mobile of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that victim has supported the prosecution story and that the indecent
video of the victim has been recovered from the mobile of the applicant, 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…