HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29955 of 2025 Court No. - 65 (Sl. No. 127 out of 262) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Sana, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. 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. 600 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(2) BNS and 67A Information Technology Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has not video recorded any act, whatsoever. The said act, if any, has been done by co-accused person Amarjeet, who has been exonerated by the police. There is no evidence that the applicant made viral the indecent video as he did not have it in his possession. There is no recovery of any video from the possession of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is in jail since 27.6.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar, Imtiaz Husain, Shad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui Shivam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a statement of one witness, namely, Wasid, to whose mobile the applicant had sent the indecent video and he has given the said video to the investigating officer, who had viewed the same and found it highly objectionable. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the witness to whose mobile the applicant had sent the indecent video and he has given the said video to the investigating officer, who had viewed the same and found it highly objectionable, 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 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. 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. April 2, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 29955 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad