Allahabad High Court
Sunny Dubey @ Vivek Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. on 30 July, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127029
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51152 of 2023
Applicant :- Sunny Dubey @ Vivek Kumar Dubey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Singh,Jeetendra Kesharwani,Manoj Kumar Dwivedi,Shweta Nishad,Siddharth Niranjan,Tariq Maqbool Khan,Vinay Kumar Singh,Vivek Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brijesh Chand Kaushik,G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Divyanshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Brijesh Chand Kaushik, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.403 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Chiluatal, District- Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 28.5.2023 and had video recorded the said act, whereby had threatened the victim to make it viral on social media, as such, FIR was instituted against him.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about three months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated the victim was a consenting party and she was in corporeal relationship with the applicant for a substantial period of time and having fallen out she has instituted the FIR against him.
7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained in paragraph-27 of the affidavit filed with bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.8.2023 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 counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant had posted the said indecent video of the victim on social media by using his ID Sunny baba47, as such, had tarnished the image of the victim. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicant has misused his clout and posted indecent video of the victim on social media, 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 :- 30.7.2025
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
