Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60301 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13002 of 2025 Applicant :- Manish Kumar Jha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 08.04.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2005, under Sections 69, 123, 351(3), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station - Rawatpur, District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and had taken her to several hotels for establishing the said relationship. The applicant is stated to have video recorded the said act and threatened her to make them viral on social media. He is stated to have even sent the said indecent video to several students through email id. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by two and a half months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is major as she is a student of B.Tech first year although her age has been suppressed to be 17 years 4 months. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is further stated that the said two videos have been recovered from the mobile of the applicant but there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had made them viral on social media or hacked the email id of the victim. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.02.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the prosecution story corroborates from the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS. As per her school certificate, she is 17 years old only, as such, is minor. It is further argued that the applicant was arrested by the police and from his possession, his mobile was recovered. On searching the gallery of the applicant's mobile, the said two indecent videos of the victim were recovered, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the applicant has misused his clout and two indecent videos have been recovered from his mobile which he is stated to have been shown to several persons, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application 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:- 22.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad