Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52569 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6491 of 2025 Applicant :- Ayush Seth Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pooja Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Kumar Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Pooja, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 438 of 2024, U/S 328, 386, 376(3) IPC and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 and 67A I.T. Act, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant is stated to have befriended the victim when the informant was bedridden and had spiked her drink on 21.6.2024 by taking her to a hotel and had video-recorded the said act and started blackmailing the victim and had taken heavy amount from her as extortion money. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 5. 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence. He has not made any video of the victim viral. 6. The FIR is delayed by three months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.9.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 8. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the indecent video of the victim and the applicant has been recovered from the mobile of the applicant himself, which corroborates the prosecution story of extortion and the indecent video. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the video has been recovered from the mobile of the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application 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 laid down in the recent judgements 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 :- 10.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad