Allahabad High Court
TANVEER AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was denied because the video evidence indicated the applicant’s involvement, making the case unsuitable for release on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed on behalf of Tanveer Ahmad in a criminal case (Crime No. 177 of 2025) under Sections 64(2)(M), 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS. The applicant claimed innocence, asserted that the alleged victim was a consenting party, and highlighted his clean record and student status. The State opposed bail, presenting a recovered mobile phone containing indecent videos showing the applicant in a compromising position with the victim. Weighing the evidence, the Court found the presence of such videos sufficient to deny bail, emphasizing that the case was not fit for release on bail. The application was rejected, and the Court directed that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing Supreme Court precedents, while noting that its observations were limited to the bail matter and would not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 64(2)(M), 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS in view of the video evidence.
- Whether the existence of indecent videos negates the claim of consent and justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the trial must be expedited as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 115(2), 351(3), 64(2)(M)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- consent
- indecent video evidence
- expeditious trial
- Section 64
- Section 115
- Section 351
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38196 of 2025
Tanveer Ahmad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Sajiwan Mishra, Satyam Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 158 out of 277)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Satyam Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(M), 115(2),
351(3) of BNS, Police Station- Nawabganj, District - Kanpur Nagar,
during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he has no
connection with the offence alleged in the FIR. It is further contended that
the conduct of the victim, as reflected from the circumstances, indicates
that she was a consenting party. It is also submitted that both the applicant
and the victim were students pursuing an M.B.A. degree. The applicant
has been in custody since 11.08.2025 and has no criminal antecedents. In
case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and shall cooperate with trial.
5. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application, submitting that the applicant’s mobile phone was recovered,
and that indecent videos of the victim were found therein, in which the
applicant is seen in a compromising position with the victim.
BAIL No. 38196 of 2025
2
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and taking into
account that the applicant’s mobile phone was recovered and indecent
videos of the victim were found therein, in which the applicant is seen in
a compromising position with the victim, I am not inclined to hold this to
be a fit case for grant of bail.
7. In view of the above, the bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
recent judgements 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 20, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…