Vidit vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42883

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4203 of 2025

Applicant :- Vidit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Mishra,Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.368 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)(m), 123, 115(2), 352 B.N.S. and Section 66-E I.T. Act, 2000, Police StationBhojpur, District- Moradabad, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have posted certain indecent photographs and video on the Whatsapp number of the sister of the victim, i.e. 8439010098 and had also posted them on social media by mobile number 9068643345. The applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim by threatening her to make them viral on social media.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations are per se false. The informant has been examined during trial as PW-1 and he has not supported the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. Subsequent to it, the statement of victim, PW-2 has also been recorded and although she has supported the prosecution in her examination-in-chief, but during her cross-examination the same day she has stated that applicant had not made viral any indecent video on social media and her cross-examination was deferred due to paucity of time. Her cross-examination was further taken on 3.7.2025 and the victim has not supported the prosecution

¶12

story. She has further stated that she had given the statement U/s 183 B.N.S.S. under the duress of her parents.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The only evidence that has come up against the applicant is that the mobile number from which the said indecent photographs and video are stated to have been posted on Instagram ID belongs to one Rakshit Chaudhary and it is stated that applicant was using the said mobile number and had procured the said SIM card by using his ID. The said allegations are false. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.9.2024.

¶14

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant has misused his clout and the trust of the victim vested in him and has used the mobile number of his brother i.e.7455934678 and that of the witness Rakshit Chaudhary which is 9068643345 from one and the same mobile with IMEI No.8683322040388590 which indicates that it was the applicant only who had made the said photographs and video viral, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and taking into consideration that the said mobile numbers were used from one and the same mobile with IMEI No.8683322040388590, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶16

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.3.2025/ Vikas

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vidit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anwar vs State of U.P.

Amresh vs State of U.P.

Suryakant vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kashyap vs State of U.P.

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

Anupam vs State of U.P.