Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70757 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13760 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahant Ajaydas Maharaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Badan Maurya Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Badan Maurya, learned counsel for the informant, 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.23 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 352, 140(1), 127(2) B.N.S. and Section 66E I.T. Act, Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be running an Ashram and was even involved in exercise of exorcism and had established corporeal relationship with the victim to set-aside the evil forces around her and had even made indecent video of her. 5. On 03.04.2023, the applicant kept on establishing the said relationship on the pretext that she shall make the said video viral on social media and again called the victim to his Ashram on 12.10.2024 on the pretext that he shall delete the said video, but did not comply with the said promise. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than one year and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even it is delayed by about two years from the initial date of offence. The application under Section 173(5) B.N.S.S. has been moved after a delay of about two months as it was filed on 07.10.2024. There is no explanation of any delay either. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim has changed her version constantly at several places. It is a clear-cut case of false implication. The victim is 35 years old lady. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as she has refused her medical examination. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no recovery of any video whatsoever. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant had complied with the provisions of Section 171(3) B.N.S.S., as such, the delay has been explained. The applicant is carrying heavy clout and under his duress, the FIR could not be instituted. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident coupled with the fact that there is no recovery of any video whatsoever, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Mahant Ajaydas Maharaj, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad