Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27089 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34558 of 2024 Applicant :- Vivek Tiwari Alias Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Gopal,Devashish Tripathi,Jagadish Prasad Yadav,Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Jagadish Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.81 of 2024, under Sections 376(3) IPC, 3/4, 13/14 POCSO Act and Section 67A, 67B IT Act, Police Station- Koirauna, District- Bhadohi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years between 2.11.2023 to 25.1.2024 and had even video recorded the said act and kept on establishing the said relationship for a substantial period of time on the pretext that he shall make them viral. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have made it viral, as such, the FIR was instituted on 3.8.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about seven months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no recovery of any indecent video from the applicant. The allegations are per se false. As far as one witness Yogesh Kumar is concerned, there is no evidence that he had found the said video indecent and also he has not mentioned the source from where he received the said video, although he had shown the video on his mobile to the informant. The said allegations are false and vague. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although her age has come out to be 17 years as per the ossification test report. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.8.2024 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. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has misused his clout and video recorded the indecent video of the victim and made it viral on social media, thereby has ruined her life. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the video has been shown to the informant that was made viral by the applicant and the mobile of the applicant has been sent for forensic analysis coupled by the fact that already six prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end, 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 :- 27.2.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad