Allahabad High Court
JANU @ RAMAKANT SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the seriousness of the allegations, the viral nature of the indecent video and the unexplained delay in filing the FIR preclude the grant of bail.
Summary
The applicant, Janu @ Ramakant Sharma, was charged with rape, criminal intimidation and offences under the POCSO and IT Acts, alleged to have possessed and helped viral a indecent video of the victim. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co‑accused, raped the victim and blackmailed her, while the defence highlighted a one‑year delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical evidence, and absence of forensic proof linking the applicant to the video. The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the fact that the video had been made viral, and the unexplained FIR delay. Concluding that the bail application was devoid of merit, the court denied bail. It also directed the trial court to expedite the trial, citing recent Supreme Court precedents, and clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences and the alleged involvement in a viral indecent video.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of forensic evidence justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- sexual assault
- POCSO Act
- IT Act
- viral video
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40490 of 2025
Janu @ Ramakant Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajnish Tripathi, Ram Krishna Dubey,
Siddharth Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.177 out of 259)
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 10.11.2025.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on
record.
3. Heard Sri Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Abhishek Singh,
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 Case Crime No. 208
of 2025, under Sections 376/34, 506 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act, Police
Station Ujhani, District Budaun, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
PROSECUTION STORY:
5. The co-accused person Majhale @ Veeresh 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 the
applicant, who again threatened her and committed rape with her. It is also alleged in
the FIR that recently the co-accused person Arun and applicant are stated to have
made the said video viral.
BAIL No. 40490 of 2025
2
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The FIR is delayed by more than one year and there is no explanation of the said
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 the mobile of the applicant and there is no forensic
evidence to indicate that applicant was visible in the said video. There were
instructions indicating that the video was seen by the investigating officer and only
one hand of a male person is visible in it, although victim is stated to have heard
saying 'Please leave her brother Majhale'. 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 the applicant.
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 one co-
accused 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…