Allahabad High Court
TEJVEER ALIAS BHOOLAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed off/Decided on merits
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected.
Summary
The applicant, Tejveer alias Bhoola, sought bail in a criminal case under Sections 64, 351(3) of the BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act for alleged extortion and distribution of indecent photographs. The applicant's counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was delayed, and that the mobile numbers from which the victim's material originated did not belong to him. The State Law Officer countered that a mobile phone recovered from the applicant contained two IMEI numbers and the number 9027107312, which the applicant admitted belonged to him, and that the phone's gallery held indecent photographs and videos of the victim, indicating his complicity. The court examined the submissions and the presence of the material on the applicant's phone and found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court directing an expeditious trial while limiting its observations to the bail matter.
Issues considered
- Whether the presence of indecent photographs and videos on the applicant's mobile phone establishes a prima facie case warranting denial of bail
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the claim of false implication affect the applicant's eligibility for bail
- Whether the alleged extortion and violation of Section 67 of the IT Act justify the denial of bail
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 351(3), 64
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
Subjects
- bail
- indecent photographs
- extortion
- Information Technology Act
- mobile phone evidence
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24686 of 2025
Tejveer Alias Bhoola
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhaya Raj Singh, Arvind Kumar Singh,
Manglam Pandey, Shadab Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sushil Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 143 out of 277)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Manglam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail
in Case Crime No. 173 of 2025, under Sections 64, 351(3) of BNS and
Section 67 of Information Technology Act, Police Station- Raya, District -
Mathura, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing
to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed and
there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. Learned counsel has also stated that the present case essentially pertains to
a consensual relationship. It is submitted that the victim, in her statement,
has alleged that the applicant took two lakh rupees as extortion money from
her in lieu of deleting the indecent videos of her, but these allegations are
false, baseless, and appear to be an after thought. It is further contended that
the informant received the indecent photographs and videos of the victim
from two mobile numbers, i.e. 7037630555 and 9058624921, neither of
which belongs to the applicant, as such, it is a clear cut case of false
implication.
BAIL No. 24686 of 2025
2
6. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in
jail since 30.05.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall
cooperate with trial.
7. Per contra, the learned State Law Officer vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that a mobile phone was recovered from the
possession of the applicant bearing two IMEI numbers, i.e.
869175053774113 and 869175053774105, and on it the mobile number
9027107312 was found. The applicant himself has allegedly stated that this
mobile belongs to him, and from it the indecent photographs of the victim
were clicked. Perusal of the said mobile indicated the presence of several
indecent photographs and videos of the victim in its gallery. It is argued that,
even if the two mobile numbers 7037630555 and 9058624921 mentioned
above do not belong to the applicant, the presence of the alleged indecent
photographs and videos of the victim in the gallery of his mobile clearly
indicates his complicity, and that no other person could have made the said
material viral as it was in his exclusive possession.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the
fact that the presence of the alleged indecent photographs and videos of the
victim in the gallery of the mobile of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case
to release the applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
10. 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.
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.
April 20, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…