Allahabad High Court
KALLUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was denied as the applicant was found to have created an indecent video of the victim, rendering the application without merit.
Summary
The applicant Kallu was arrested on 19 July 2025 in connection with a case involving alleged indecent video creation, charged under IPC sections 504, 506, 376(2)M, sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act and section 67 of the IT Act. He claimed the victim had consented to the video and argued he was innocent, seeking bail. The State Law Officer produced the recovered video showing the applicant making the indecent recording, countering the consent claim. The court examined the material and, noting the video evidence, found the bail application without merit. Consequently, the bail was denied, and the court directed the trial to proceed expeditiously, limiting its observations to the bail matter.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite video evidence indicating his participation in creating an indecent video.
- Whether alleged consent of the victim negates the offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act and IT Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376(2)M, 504, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(V)
Subjects
- bail
- indecent video
- sexual offences
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- IT Act
- consent
- video evidence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31062 of 2025
Kallu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mansur Ali Ansari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 146 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice
has been served to the informant on 5.9.2025.
2. Heard Sri Mansur Ali Ansari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.P.
Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No. 189 of 2024, under Sections 504, 506, 376(2)M IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act,
3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and 67 IT Act, Police Station Chandwak, District
Jaunpur, 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. The
victim is the consenting party as is evident from the fact that she had allowed
the applicant to click her video. The applicant has nothing to do with the said
offence, as such, he is entitled for bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is in jail
since 19.7.2025 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that the said video was recovered, which was sent
from the mobile of the applicant, which stands proved during investigation.
The applicant is visible in it making the said video and the victim is found in
BAIL No. 31062 of 2025
2
objectionable state, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that the applicant had viral the indecent video of the victim, 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…