Allahabad High Court

AKHILESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Akhilesh Kumar, accused under sections 64(2)(m), 115(2) and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code for alleged obscene video and related offences. The investigating officer admitted that no obscene video was found on the accused's mobile, and the mobile was sent for forensic analysis only after the court's order. The applicant argued that the victim’s statements were inconsistent, the relationship between them was admitted, and there was no recovery of incriminating material, while also highlighting his clean record and the pending chargesheet. The State opposed bail, contending that the investigation was incomplete. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on bail, the court noted the lack of material evidence, the nature of the offence, jail overcrowding, and the applicant’s cooperation, and consequently allowed the bail application with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the investigation has not recovered any obscene material and is pending.
Whether the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and the admitted relationship affect the bail decision.
Whether the nature of the offences under IPC sections 64(2)(m), 115(2) and 351(3) warrants denial of bail.
Whether jail overcrowding and pendency of criminal cases justify granting bail.
Whether procedural lapses by the investigating officer impact the bail determination.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 180, 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 64(2)(m)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
investigation negligence
obscene material
relationship between parties
chargesheet
jail overcrowding
IPC sections 64, 115, 351
foreensic analysis

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33165 of 2026

Akhilesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kapil Yadav, Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Utkarsh Tripathi, G.A.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Utkarsh Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant
and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail in case crime no. 251 of 2026, under sections
64(2)(m), 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Colonalganj, District
Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.

3. In pursuance of the order dated 17.09.2026, I.O. of this case is
present and he apprised the court that though on preliminary
examination of the mobile of the applicant, he could not find any
obscene video of the victim. However after the order of this Court, he
has sent the mobile of the applicant to FSL on 19.09.2026 and
thereafter, chargesheet was filed on 21.09.2026. He further apprised
to the Court that though the application submitted by the first
informant to Commissioner of Police was received by him on
10.08.2026 but he did not proceed to recover the laptop and other
electronic gadget of the applicant for the reason that the victim has
not made any allegation that applicant has been using two mobile
phones and the data regarding obscene video has been saved on his
laptop. It is further apprised that immediately after receiving the FSL
report, he will conduct further investigation if need arises after taking
BAIL No. 33165 of 2026
2

appropriate permission from the concerned court. Though there is
some negligence on the part of I.O. in conducting the investigation
but court appreciates his fairness in telling the correct fact as well as
his immediate response of sending the mobile phone of the applicant
to FSL on 19.09.2026. Therefore, court is satisfied with the
explanation submitted by the I.O.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that from the FIR
as well as statement of victim, it is clear that both of them were in
relationship and this fact was admitted by the victim that she also
conducted the abortion in hospital in three occasions. It is further
submitted that the allegation of victim that on 16.05.2026, applicant
had taken the victim to Hotel Grand Village, Jhunsi but the statement
of receptionist shows that applicant and victim did not come to hotel
on 16.05.2026 but both of them have come to hotel on 13.12.2025,
14.12.2025, 06.06.2026 and no abortion or threat appeared at the
time of check-in in the hotel on the face of the victim. This creates
doubt over the entire prosecution story. It is further submitted that as
on date, there is no recovery of any obscene video or photo from the
mobile phone of the applicant. Therefore, this further creates the
doubt over the entire prosecution story. The correct fact is that both of
them were in relationship, subsequently because of certain reason,
the victim has lodged an FIR in question. It is further submitted that
the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that
charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no
requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is languishing in
jail since 01.08.2026. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse
the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned
A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted
that police has not conducted investigation properly and for that
reason, no mobile phone or no obscene photo or video was
recovered but could not dispute the fact that as on date, there is no
obscene photo or video in the case diary as alleged by the victim in
the statement as well as in the FIR.
BAIL No. 33165 of 2026
3

6. Considering the aforesaid submission and taking into account the
statement of victim recorded u/s 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS as well as
the statement of receptionist of the hotel Grand Village disputing the
allegation of prosecutrix to check-in at the hotel on 16.05.2026 and
taking into account that no obscene video or photo was recovered till
date by the police and keeping in view the nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the
trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of
the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau
of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant- Akhilesh Kumar, involved in the aforementioned
crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
BAIL No. 33165 of 2026
4

9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant
as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.

11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis
of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the
official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned
counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within
15 days.

12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order
to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System
(BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
through Prayagraj Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on e-prison
portal and Trial Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the
order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of
Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on
31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as Pila Pahan @
Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.

14. Incharge, FSL, Varanasi is directed to prepare the FSL report
within one month and submit the same before the trial court.

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 23, 2026
S.C.

Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM CHAURASIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…