Jeetu @ Jitesh vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:104443
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an applicant is accused of creating and circulating indecent video content of a victim, and has a prior criminal history involving similar offences against other victims, bail may be refused on the grounds that the applicant presents a risk of continued criminal conduct and the gravity of the allegations militates against release. Where a bail application is rejected, the trial court should proceed to decide the case expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, in the absence of legal impediment. Observations made by the court in disposing of a bail application are confined to the facts relevant to that application and shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the case at trial.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard Sri Abhinab Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.286 of 2025, under Sections 64, 351(3) B.N.S. and 66-E, 67-A I.T. Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no recovery of any video of the victim whatsoever. The allegations are per se false. The brother of the victim had handed over the said video to the Investigating Officer. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is in jail since 28.9.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is recovery of indecent video of the victim, which was made viral by the applicant in the village. The said video has been handed over by the brother of the victim to the Investigating Officer. The mobile of the applicant has been sent for forensic analysis.
6. It is further argued by learned A.G.A. that the applicant has a criminal history of a similar nature involving a different victim. As such, he used to harass minor girls by luring them and video recording the said acts. Therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicant had made viral the indecent video of the victim coupled by the fact that he was accused in another case of similar nature, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, if there is no legal impediment.
9. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free