Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55921 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43526 of 2024 Applicant :- Omendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Gautam Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 25.11.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Imtiyaz Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 312 of 2024, under Sections 64, 351(2) of BNS, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67A of Information Technology Act, Police Station - Sahawar, District - Kasganj, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the victim and had committed rape with her. He is also stated to have taken certain nude photographs of her and threatened her to make them viral on social media lest she continue with the said relationship. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case out of local political rivalry. The allegations are per se false. It is stated that the said photographs were made viral on facebook from one ID in the name of Babubabu7th and the said ID does not belong to the applicant. There is nothing on record to connect the applicant to the said facebook ID. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.10.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the relevant part as observed by the investigating officer need not be taken on record but are very much part of the investigation which indicates that the said photographs were indecent and the allegations are against the applicant and no one else, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the said indecent photographs of the victim have been made viral on facebook, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 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. Order Date:- 16.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad