Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42944 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5310 of 2025 Applicant :- Adnan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Syed Mohammad Abbas Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Sri Mohd. Areeb Masood, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Areeb Masood, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 518 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 70(2), 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station - Syohara, District - Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim and had even posted certain indecent photos and videos of her on social media. 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 as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel has stated that the victim has been examined as PW-1 in Court and has not supported the prosecution story as she had categorically stated that the applicant has neither committed rape with her nor has recorded any indecent videos or photographs of her. The victim has even stated that in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, she has levelled the allegations against the applicant as the police had forced her to do so. 6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.10.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has not opposed the bail application and he has stated that he has no objection in granting the bail to the applicant. 8. On the other hand, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said indecent video was produced before the trial court in a pen drive and in the said video, the victim has clearly visible along with the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also the fact that the applicant had made viral the said indecent video on social media which has been produced before the learned Trial Court, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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. 12. 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:- 24.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad