Allahabad High Court
SHIVAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is devoid of merit and is rejected.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shivam in a case under IPC sections 64, 352, 351(2) BNS and IT Act section 67A for allegedly circulating an indecent video. The applicant claimed innocence, stating he never possessed or recorded the video and that the co‑accused Amarjeet was exonerated. The prosecution relied on a witness, Wasid, who said the applicant sent the video to his mobile and that the video was seized and found objectionable by the investigating officer. After evaluating the witness statement and the seriousness of the alleged offence, the Court found the bail application without merit and rejected it, while directing that the trial proceed expeditiously in line with Supreme Court precedents. The Court clarified that its observations are limited to the bail application and do not prejudice the trial merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under IPC sections 64, 352, 351(2) BNS and IT Act section 67A in view of the alleged circulation of an indecent video.
- Whether the witness statement and seized video evidence justify denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant's claim of innocence and lack of possession of the video affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2) BNS, 352, 64
- Information Technology Act — s. 67A
Subjects
- bail
- indecent video
- Information Technology Act
- IPC
- section 67A
- section 64
- section 352
- section 351
- witness statement
- speedy trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29955 of 2025
Shivam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar, Imtiaz Husain, Shad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 127 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Sana, learned
Advocate holding brief for Sri Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel
for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, 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. 600 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(2) BNS and 67A Information
Technology Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, with the
prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Applicant has not video recorded any act, whatsoever. The said act, if any,
has been done by co-accused person Amarjeet, who has been exonerated by
the police. There is no evidence that the applicant made viral the indecent
video as he did not have it in his possession. There is no recovery of any
video from the possession of the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is in jail
since 27.6.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have
BAIL No. 29955 of 2025
2
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a
statement of one witness, namely, Wasid, to whose mobile the applicant had
sent the indecent video and he has given the said video to the investigating
officer, who had viewed the same and found it highly objectionable.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the statement of the witness to whose mobile the applicant had sent the
indecent video and he has given the said video to the investigating officer,
who had viewed the same and found it highly objectionable, 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.
8. 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.
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
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…