Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123043 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45730 of 2024 Applicant :- Monu Alias Amarjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Archana Gaur,G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Gupta,Ravindra Kumar Yadav,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 67B of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station- Binauli, District- Baghpat, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Manish Kumar is stated to have taken the victim to a tubewell on 01.09.2024 at about 10:00 PM and committed rape with her. Subsequent to it, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have gang raped her and had video recorded the said act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are ample contradictions in the statement of victim recorded under section 183 BNSS and the statement recorded by the Doctor. It is also argued that it has come up in the statement of the applicant before police that his mobile was used by co-accused person-Manish Kumar, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. Co-accused person Manish Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47096 of 2024. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. both have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it was the applicant who had video recorded the said act and had made it viral. The said mobile of the applicant has been recovered and from it the indecent video of the victim has also been recovered, as such, applicant is the main accused person who, after committing the heinous offence of gang rape, has misused the said video and made it viral. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the main accused person from whose possession the video has been recovered and he was also involved in the offence of gang rape, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously 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. 11. 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 :- 25.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad