Allahabad High Court
SHUBHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court declined to grant bail, holding that the nature and gravity of the offence and the stage of trial do not justify release.
Summary
The applicant, Shubhan, was charged under Sections 64(1), 77, 351(3) of the BNS Act and Section 67A of the I.T. Act for allegedly circulating an explicit video of the victim on Instagram. The applicant sought bail, arguing that the victim’s statements recorded during trial differed from earlier statements and that the video was not disseminated via his mobile, weakening the prosecution’s case. The State contended that the victim reaffirmed the seriousness of the allegations and that the video’s circulation on social media was undisputed, emphasizing the gravity of the cyber‑crime. After considering the change in victim testimony, the alleged video dissemination, and the seriousness of the offence at the trial stage, the court refused bail. The bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the victim’s change of testimony and alleged circulation of an explicit video on social media.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged cyber‑offence and the stage of the trial justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- cybercrime
- video circulation
- victim hostile
- I.T. Act
- BNS
- trial stage
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34162 of 2026
Shubhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Kumar Sen, Raj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 30 out of 109)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Anuj Kumar Sen, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun
Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 77, 351(3) of
BNS and 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District -
Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.
4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide
order dated 06.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18471
of 2025.
5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
statements of PW-1 and PW-2 (the victim) have since been recorded before
the trial court. It is contended that during her cross-examination, the victim
(PW-2) did not support the prosecution's story and resiled from her earlier
stance. It is further submitted that the alleged explicit video of the victim
was not circulated or made viral through the mobile of the applicant, thereby
weakening the nexus between the applicant and the alleged offence. The
applicant has been languishing in jail since 13.03.2025. It is assured that in
the event bail is granted, the applicant will not misuse the liberty, shall
strictly abide by all conditions, and will fully cooperate with the ongoing
trial.
6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail
BAIL No. 34162 of 2026
2
application, asserting that the victim had categorically reiterated the gravity
of the allegations made in the FIR both in her statement recorded u/s 183 of
BNSS and during her examination-in-chief conducted on 24.08.2026. It is
argued that although the victim subsequently turned hostile during cross-
examination, the factum of the video being circulated on the Instagram
platform remains undisputed. Given the serious nature of the cyber-crime
and the exploitation involved, the applicant is not entitled to any leniency.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the
accusation, the active dissemination of the sensitive video on social media,
and the stage of the trial, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on
bail.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, the Trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid case
expeditiously, in accordance with law, 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.
11. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the
Trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
September 24, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…