Allahabad High Court
KARAN KUMAR ALIAS PRADUMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail and dismissed the bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Karan Kumar, sought bail in a criminal case involving alleged posting of indecent photographs and a video of a consenting victim on Instagram, charged under sections of the BNS, Income Tax Act and POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, citing the victim's statement of consent and lack of prior criminal record, and argued that he did not use his own ID to post the material. The State opposed bail, presenting a forensic report indicating the applicant created the Instagram ID and posted the indecent video. The Court, after considering the submissions and the forensic evidence, found that the applicant had misused his clout to disseminate the indecent content and therefore was not entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the Court directing the trial to proceed expeditiously, referencing recent Supreme Court judgments. The observations were limited to the bail application and do not prejudice the trial's merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations of posting indecent material on Instagram under sections of the BNS, Income Tax Act and POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim's statement of consent negates the seriousness of the offences alleged.
- Whether the forensic evidence linking the applicant to the Instagram ID warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 351(2), 352, 64, 75
- Income Tax Act — s. 66E, 67
- POCSO Act — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- indecent video
- POCSO Act
- Income Tax Act
- criminal procedure
- forensic evidence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24893 of 2025
Karan Kumar Alias Pradum
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Prakash Rai, Om Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 101 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the
informant has been served on 10.07.2025 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 28 of 2025, under Sections 64, 75, 351(2), 352
of BNS and 66E & 67 of I.T. Act and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police
Station- Drumandganj, District - Mirzapur, 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. As per the
statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, she seems to be a
consenting party as she is stated to be madly in love with the applicant
although it is also alleged that he posted certain indecent photographs of
her on instagram. It is argued that the applicant has not used his ID, as
such, he is entitled for bail. He is languishing in jail since 05.04.2025,
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.
BAIL No. 24893 of 2025
2
5. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that as per the forensic report, the applicant has misused his
number and created the said instagram ID from which the said indecent
video of the victim was posted, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that the applicant has misused his clout and posted the indecent
video of the victim on instagram, I do not find it a fit case to release the
applicant on bail.
7. The bail application 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…