Allahabad High Court

SAMIR KHANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The presence of indecent photographs recovered from the accused's mobile phone constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Samir Khan in a case under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that the FIR was delayed by 13 days, the victim was a consenting party, and there was no evidence of indecent material or blackmail. The State contended that the investigating officer recovered indecent photographs of the victim from the applicant’s mobile phone, indicating misuse of clout and blackmail. After hearing both sides, the court found the presence of such photographs sufficient to deny bail, describing the application as devoid of merit. The bail plea was rejected, and the court directed the trial to proceed expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Issues considered

Whether the recovery of indecent photographs from the accused's mobile phone justifies denial of bail
Whether a 13‑day delay in filing the FIR affects the grant of bail
Whether the absence of evidence of blackmail or viral distribution warrants bail
Whether the accused's clean criminal record influences bail eligibility

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 64(2)(m)

Subjects

bail
indecent photographs
blackmail
FIR delay
Section 64
Section 351
criminal procedure
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44639 of 2025

Samir Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Kumar, Shivendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prakash Chand Srivastava

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.130 out of 269)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Prakash
Chand Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra
Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.246 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2) BNS, Police Station Wave
City, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by
about 13 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The
victim is a consenting party as she travelled with the applicant all the way to
Gujarat and had not raised any alarm whatsoever. There is no evidence that
any indecent photograph or video of the victim was recovered from the
applicant and even there is no evidence that applicant made it viral.

5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no
evidence that applicant blackmailed the victim in lieu of making the said
video or photograph viral on social media. There is no criminal history of the
applicant. The applicant is in jail since 1.9.2025 and he is ready to cooperate
with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 44639 of 2025
2

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the
Investigating Officer opened the applicant’s mobile phone and recovered
indecent photographs of the applicant and the victim from the gallery of the
said mobile. As such, it is a clear-cut case of misuse of clout and
blackmailing of the victim. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that indecent photographs of the victim were recovered from the
mobile of applicant, which were taken in possession by the Investigating
Officer, 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.

8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting
unnecessary adjournment to either party, 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.)
May 14, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…