Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63028 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36252 of 2024 Applicant :- Amar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Pyare Lal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 192 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Musajhag, District- Budaun, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the daughter of the informant on 8.7.2024 at about 10:00 a.m. 5. 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 day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations in the FIR were regarding outraging the modesty only, but the same have been escalated to that of rape by the victim in her statement recorded U/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. after legal consultation. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is a clear cut case of false implication, which can be drawn from the fact that on the alleged date of incident the applicant had an altercation with the father of the victim and he was booked U/s 170, 126, 135 B.N.S.S. and was arrested by the police at 02:20 p.m. on 9.7.2024 and he was released the same day. As an afterthought, the instant FIR was instituted on 9.7.2024 at 08:45 p.m., as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is true that victim was minor aged about 14 years, but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.7.2024 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that prosecution story has been added with embellishments in the statement of victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. coupled by the fact that FIR is delayed by more than one day and also that the applicant was booked U/s 170, 126, 135 B.N.S.S. and was arrested the same day at 02:20 p.m., and the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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. 11. Let the applicant- Amar Singh, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 24.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad