Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93452 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18961 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.256 of 2025, under Sections 376, 452, 506 I.P.C. and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Kosikalan, District- Mathura with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have video recorded the act of bathing of the victim and had subsequently established corporeal relationship with her and had also recorded the said act of coitus. There are allegations that applicant had subsequently sent the said indecent videos to the mobile of her husband and brother. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed and he has nothing to do with the said offence. The victim in her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that she does not know as to why the applicant had sent the said videos to her husband and brother. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the aforesaid fact indicates that the videos were recorded with the consent of the victim only. There is no evidence regarding the fact that the said videos were ever recorded by the mobile of the applicant as there is no forensic evidence to corroborate the mobile number of the applicant, as such, he is entitled for bail. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the mobile number of the applicant which is 7027031718 has been recovered and the videos have been recovered from it also. It is the same mobile number from which the said indecent videos of the victim were sent to her husband and brother. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the act of the applicant has ruined the life of the victim, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that it was the applicant who had sent the said indecent videos to the husband and brother of the victim, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and 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 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. 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 :- 30.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad