The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of allegedly providing support in producing offensive YouTube songs targeting Hindu deities. [Rajveer Singh Yadav v. State of UP]

Justice Sameer Jain observed that accused Rajveer Singh Yadav was not named in the first information report (FIR) and was implicated only during investigation based on the statement of co-accused Saroj Sargam.

“As per allegation applicant and co-accused... hurt the religious sentiments of Hindu Community but it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR and in the FIR the allegation of hurting the religious sentiment was only against co-accused," the Court observed.

It noted that the first information report (FIR) was initially lodged against co-accused Saroj Sargam with allegations that she used abusive language against Hindu deities in songs uploaded on YouTube.

During investigation, she allegedly told police that Yadav had supplied material used in the songs, following which he was also made an accused in the case and arrested within two days.

Apart from that statement, Yadav was also alleged to have been the editor of a controversial book.

The Court noted that there was no evidence to show that any public order disturbance had occurred as a result of the alleged acts by Yadav.

“As per allegation applicant also hurt the sentiments of Hindu Community but there is no evidence that either due to his act or conduct public order has ever been disturbed," the Court said.

It also found prima facie inconsistency in the State’s claim that Yadav had tried to evade arrest, recording that a reward of ₹25,000 had been imposed against him despite his arrest within a short span of time.

A significant factor considered by the Court was the admitted failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to Yadav at the time of his arrest.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana (2025), the Court noted that such non-compliance with mandatory safeguards was a relevant consideration in deciding bail.

The Court also noted that Yadav had been in custody for over six months. It found that his continued detention was not justified at this stage, as the offences he is accused of were not very serious, with most carrying a maximum sentence of up to seven years.

Emphasising that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the Court held bail should not be denied as a form of punishment.

Hence, the Court directed Yadav to be released on bail subject to conditions such as appearing before the trial court when called, not influencing witnesses and not engaging in any criminal activity.

It added that any violation of these conditions could lead to cancellation of his bail.

Advocates Biswajeet Mukherjee, Kamal Krishna Roy, Ramesh Kumar and Vineet Vikram represented Rajveer Singh Yadav (accused).

The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Government Advocate Brajesh Pratap Singh.

[Read Order]