Dismissed¶22

Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2025BAIL/5627/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; blackmail and circulation of indecent video-call screenshots; Ss. 64(1), 316(2), 317(2), 351(3) BNS; S. 67A IT Act; Case Crime No. 123 of 2024; PS Nagla Khagar, District Firozabad; applicant Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya; victim allegedly major, consent argument raised; FIR delayed 21 days; custody since 20.12.2024; one criminal case under Epidemic Act withdrawn; misuse of clout finding; speedy trial direction relying on Vinod Kumar (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain (2017) 5 SCC 702; observations confined to bail stage.

What did the court decide?

None; bail application rejected. Trial court directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment. ¶22

Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; bail application rejected. Trial court directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arraigned in Case Crime No. 123 of 2024 under Ss. 64(1), 316(2), 317(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and S. 67A Information Technology Act (PS Nagla Khagar, District Firozabad), should be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Court's answer

Bail refused: having regard to the fact that the applicant misused his clout and made the victim's screenshots and indecent videos viral, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶21

Key takeaways

The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.¶13
Clarification that 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¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) rejected the bail application of Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya in Case Crime No. 123 of 2024 under Ss. 64(1), 316(2), 317(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and S. 67A Information Technology Act, Police Station Nagla Khagar, District Firozabad. Prosecution alleged that the applicant threatened the victim, forced her into indecent video calls, took screenshots, raped her several times, took Rs. 40,000/- from her and Rs. 2,000/- by transfer, and thereafter sent the screenshots and videos to several persons and posted them on his status. The applicant's counsel urged innocence, a 21-day delay in the FIR, the victim being a consenting major aged about 28 years, and custody since 20.12.2024 with one explained criminal case under the Epidemic Act. The State opposed, contending the applicant misused his clout and circulated the indecent material. The Court, noting that the applicant had misused his clout and made the screenshots and indecent videos viral, declined bail without expressing any opinion on merits and rejected the application. The trial court was directed to decide the case expeditiously in view of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. Observations were confined to the bail disposal and were stated to have no bearing on the merits at trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56003

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5627 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naseem Rufi Q Alrafio B.M. Mugaanii,Shikha Singh 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 Ms. Shikha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 123 of 2024, U/S 64(1), 316(2), 317(2), 351(3) B.N.S., 67A Information Technology Act, Police Station Nagla Khagar, District Firozabad, U.P., during the pendency of trial.

¶10

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶11

The applicant is stated to have threatened the victim and had forced her to connect with him on video call. He had taken screen shots of the said indecent video calling with the victim and had threatened her to make them viral on social media and raped her several times. The applicant is even stated to have taken Rs. 40,000/- from her and had forced her to transfer Rs. 2,000/- to his account through his mobile number. Subsequent to it, the applicant is stated to have sent the said screenshots and videos to several persons and had even put the said indecent screenshots on his status.

¶12

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶13

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

¶14

do with the said offence.

¶15

There is stated to be a recording of the conversation between the victim and the applicant, which indicates that he was blackmailing her. The FIR is delayed by 21 days and the said inordinate delay speaks volume of false implication.

¶16

The victim is the consenting party, as it was she, who had connected to the applicant and video called him. Had she not done so, there would have been no question of recording the said screenshots by the applicant. The allegations that the applicant had taken screenshots indicates that the victim had given her mobile to him, as such, she was the consenting party to it, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The victim is major, aged about 28 years.

¶17

The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.12.2024 having criminal history of one case under Epidemic Act, which stands explained, as the said case has been withdrawn by the State.

¶18

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶19

The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant had misused his clout. The victim may be the consenting party to the said relationship but she had not given any authority and it would be beyond imagination for a lady to allow another person to make viral her indecent photographs, that too, showing her vital parts. The applicant had even put the indecent screenshots on his status and had also sent them to several persons in the locality, which has been taken into possession by the investigating officer. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶20

CONCLUSION:

¶21

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 misused his clout and made the said screenshots and indecent videos of the victim viral, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶22

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶23

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

¶24

and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Shalini

¶27

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶28

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

Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Rajendra Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishal vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Saleem Alias Sallu vs State of U.P.

Mahil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pramod Yadav Alias Bauna vs State of U.P. and 3 Others