Allahabad High Court
RAJANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was denied as the court found the case unsuitable for grant of bail.
Summary
The applicant Rajan sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No.158 of 2026) alleging gang rape under Sections 70(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S., Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act. The prosecution alleged that the co‑accused Manish lured the victim to a field where Rajan and Vikas gang‑raped her and that an indecent video of the victim, about 23 seconds long, was recovered and allegedly circulated by the applicant. The applicant contended that the FIR was delayed, no video was found on his phone, the victim was a consenting party, and he had no criminal record. The court examined the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS and the recovered video, finding the material sufficient to show the seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court directing an expeditious trial without unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a gang‑rape case involving an indecent video under the POCSO and IT Acts.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the claim of consent affect the bail eligibility.
- Whether the recovery of an indecent video implicates the accused sufficiently to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 351(3), 70(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- IT Act — s. 67
- POCSO Act — s. 5G, 6
Subjects
- bail
- gang rape
- POCSO
- indecent video
- consent
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28753 of 2026
Rajan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Swati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhinav Mishra, Avdhesh Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.32 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Abhinav Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, 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.158 of 2026, under Sections 70(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Section 5G/6 POCSO
Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj
with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Manish, who is stated to
be the friend of the victim, had called her to an agricultural field, whereby
the applicant and accused Vikas also committed gang rape with her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by
about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The
victim seems to be a consenting party. There is no recovery of any indecent
video of the victim from the mobile of the applicant. The said fact is but
evident from the cyber crime report filed as annexure-8 with the affidavit as
the cyber cell could not find any indecent video on social media platform,
like Facebook, Instagram and Snap-chat, etc. As such, applicant is entitled to
bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail
since 25.5.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant
BAIL No. 28753 of 2026
2
is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the victim, in her statement, has
alleged gang rape by the applicant and co-accused Vikas after being called
by co-accused Manish. It is further submitted that an indecent video of the
victim was sent to the applicant, who circulated it among several persons in
the village, and that the said video, of about 23 seconds' duration, has been
recovered during investigation. In view of the nature and gravity of the
allegations and the material collected, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, particularly the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 BNSS, as well as the factum of recovery of an
indecent video depicting the victim, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail
to the applicant.
8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting
unnecessary adjournment to either party, if there is no legal impediment.
10. 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.)
September 11, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…