Allahabad High Court
MAJHALE @ VEERESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is dismissed as it is devoid of merit given the serious allegations and the existence of a viral video implicating the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Majhale @ Veeresh, sought bail in a session case involving alleged rape, blackmail, and the circulation of a pornographic video under Sections 376‑D, 34, 506 IPC, Sections 5(G)/6 POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant seized the victim’s hands and raped her while a co‑accused recorded the act, later blackmailing and further raping the victim and disseminating the video. The defence argued that the FIR was filed more than a year after the incident, there was no medical evidence, no video was recovered from the applicant’s phone, and the applicant had cooperated with the investigation. The State contended that the delay was explained by the recent discovery of the viral video on a co‑accused’s phone and that the applicant’s name appeared in the video. The court, after considering the seriousness of the allegations and the existence of the viral video, found the bail application without merit and rejected it, directing the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the IPC, POCSO Act and IT Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify bail.
- Whether the presence of the applicant’s name in the viral video impacts the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376-D, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(G), 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- video pornography
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37861 of 2025
Majhale @ Veeresh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Shankar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.177 out of 239)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the
informant on 30.10.2025.
2. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Abhishek
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session Case No.
1627 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.208 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 34,
506 IPC and 5(G)/6 POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Ujhani, District
Budaun, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
PROSECUTION STORY:
5. The applicant is stated to have caught hold of the hands of the niece of the
informant and committed rape with her while the co-accused person Dildar is stated to
have recorded the said video. Thereafter, the said accused Dildar blackmailed the
victim to make the said video viral on social media and also raped her. Subsequently,
the said video is stated to have been in possession of one co-accused Janu, who again
threatened her and committed rape with her. It is also alleged in the FIR that recently
the co-accused persons Arun and Janu are stated to have made the said video viral.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The FIR is delayed by more than one year and there is no explanation of the said
BAIL No. 37861 of 2025
2
delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is nothing on
record to suggest that applicant made viral the said video of the victim. There is no
recovery of any video from mobile of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since
3.6.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail,
he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. There are serious allegations against the applicant. The delay in FIR stands
explained from the fact that it has only been instituted after it came to the knowledge
of the informant that the said video has been made viral and the same has been
recovered from the mobile of co-accused Janu.
CONCLUSION:
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact
that video was made viral and it was found indecent and even the name of applicant is
mentioned in the said video, 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.
9. 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.
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.)
April 23, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…