Allahabad High Court

VINAY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

Vinay Singh applied for bail in a criminal case involving alleged offences under Sections 69, 351(3) BNS and 66‑E of the Information Technology Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged three years after the alleged incident, there was no recovery of any indecent photograph or video, and the victim herself had provided the alleged material to the investigating officer. The State opposed bail, contending that the victim had supplied a pen‑drive containing the material, though it could not be shown that the applicant transmitted it. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the victim's age, and the absence of any seized material linking the applicant to the offence, and, without passing on the merits, found a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences under the IT Act and IPC.
Whether the three‑year delay in filing the FIR and lack of recovered photographic/video evidence justify granting bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing the trial.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3) BNS
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66-E, 69

Subjects

bail
false implication
delay in FIR
indecent photography
Information Technology Act
Section 66E
Section 69
Indian Penal Code
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24459 of 2025

Vinay Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kumar Gupta, Satish Kumar Singh,
Shashi Shankar Shukla, Vishvajeet
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, G.A.,
Yasharth Upadhyay

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.107 out of 243)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram
Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2025, under Sections 69,
351(3) BNS and 66-E of I.T. Act, Police Station Tejibazar, District Jaunpur,
during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about three years and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The victim is a married women, aged about 34 years, having
three children. The victim is a consenting party.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no
recovery of any indecent photograph or video of the victim, as such, it is a
clear cut case of false implication. It has also not come up on record that
where the applicant made the said indecent photograph or video viral. The
applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 2.6.2025. He undertakes
to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 24459 of 2025
2

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the
ground that the photograph and video of the victim have been provided to
the Investigating Officer by the victim herself in a pen-drive, but he could
not dispute the fact that there is nothing in the said pen-drive to prove that
applicant sent the said indecent photograph or video of the victim to her.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in institution of FIR, the age of the victim and also
there being no recovery of any photograph or video of the victim whatsoever
from the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Vinay Singh, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.

9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…