Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42466 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9774 of 2025 Applicant :- Raja Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. As informed by the learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 10.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 90 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(n), 504, 506, 328, 385 I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 66E of I.T. Act, Police Station Fazalganj, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim by taking her to a hotel and had taken the indecent photograph and video of her on 07.12.2023. The applicant had also threatened the victim to make the said photograph and video viral on social media and had even put the said indecent photograph of the victim along with him as his display picture on Instagram. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by eight months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major although she is stated to be 15 years as per school certificate of class-Xth, as her date of birth is 06.12.2009. The allegations are per se false. The applicant has not made viral the said video or photograph on social media. Even the C.C.T.V. footage of the hotel concerned do not corroborate the prosecution story as the applicant and the victim were not found present at the hotel on 06.12.2023 or 07.12.2023 either, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.08.2024, having no criminal antecedents to his credit. The applicant is cooperating in trial. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the applicant had made viral the said indecent photograph and video of the victim by posting it on social media platform on Instagram and the indecent video of the victim along with the applicant was recovered from the possession of the applicant by the Investigating Officer. As such, it is an open and shut case and the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is a recovery of video from the possession of the applicant coupled by the fact that he had posted the indecent photograph of the victim along with him on Instagram, 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 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. 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 :- 24.3.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad