Dismissed¶21

Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2025BAIL/12381/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12381 of 2025; Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Justice Krishan Pahal; order dated 8.5.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:74554; Case Crime No. 31 of 2025; Section 69 BNS; Section 351(2) BNS; Police Station Adampur; District Amroha; false promise of marriage; indecent photographs posted on Facebook ID; breach of trust; IMEI match; mobile number 7088142158; Inspector Incharge report dated 2.5.2025; FIR delay; consenting major victim; custody since 11.3.2025; observations confined to bail disposal.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to release the applicant on bail, taking into account among other things that he made viral the victim's indecent photographs by posting them on a Facebook ID, while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Vimal Kumar vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, accused under Sections 69 and 351(2) BNS of establishing a corporeal relationship with the victim on a false promise of marriage and posting her indecent photographs on a Facebook ID created in her name, is entitled to release on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is rejected.

¶21

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are limited to the facts brought by the parties for disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) — Bail application rejected. Vimal Kumar sought bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2025, U/S 69, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Adampur, District Amroha, during the pendency of trial. Prosecution story: the applicant established a corporeal relationship with the victim on a false promise of marriage, later refused to honour it, clicked indecent photographs of her and posted them on a Facebook ID created in her name, committing breach of trust. Applicant's contentions: innocence and false implication; delay of about one and a half months in the FIR without explanation; the major victim was a consenting party; applicant in jail since 11.3.2025 with no criminal history. State's contention: the Facebook ID was generated using the victim's mobile, the device IMEI found with the applicant matched, and the photographs were posted from the applicant's mobile number 7088142158, as established by the Investigating Officer; the Inspector Incharge's report dated 2.5.2025 was filed with the compliance affidavit. Considering the facts, submissions and evidence, and specifically that the applicant had made viral the victim's indecent photographs, the Court declined bail without expressing any opinion on the merits and rejected the application, clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail disposal and would have no bearing on the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74554

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12381 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2025, U/S 69, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Adampur, District Amroha, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶10

The applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to comply with the said promise. The applicant is stated to have clicked certain indecent photographs of her and posted the same on facebook ID made in her name by the applicant, thereby committing breach of trust.

¶11

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶12

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶13

The FIR is delayed by about one and a half months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶14

The victim is the consenting party, and is major.

¶15

The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.3.2025, having no

¶16

criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶18

The bail application has been opposed on the ground that that it is true that the applicant had generated the said facebook ID of the victim by using her mobile only but the IMEI number of the device, which was found in possession of the applicant matches with the use of the applicant only and subsequently, the applicant from his mobile number 7088142158, had posted the said indecent photographs on facebook ID. The said fact stands established during investigation by the Investigating Officer. The photocopy of the report of the Inspector Incharge dated 2.5.2025 has been filed with the compliance affidavit.

¶19

CONCLUSION:

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the applicant has made viral the said indecent photographs of the victim by posting them on facebook ID, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶21

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.5.2025

¶24

Shalini

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kishan Chauhan vs State of U.P.

Vijay Bharti vs State of U.P.

Ravi Dubey vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mantu Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Kesari vs State of U.P.