Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13888 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36799 of 2024 Applicant :- Ankit Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call.This is the second bail application. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2024 at Police Station Rajgarh District Mirzapur under Sections 363, 504, 506, 376D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 22.02.2024. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 23.05.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel assisted by Shri Sanjay Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial proceedings. 2. The applicant did not influence the witnesses nor tamper with the evidence. 3. The applicant never adopted any dilatory tactics or impeded the process of the trial. 4. The applicant was falsely nominated at the instigation of inimical parties in the village. 5. Status report sent by the trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 8 witnesses to bring home the charges. Two prosecution witnesses including material witnesses of fact i.e. victim as well as father of the victim who is the first informant have been examined. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing any of the witnesses. 6. Further investigations conducted by the investigating officer also brought to light various exculpatory evidences which support the innocence of the applicant. However, this Court does not propose to appraise the prosecution evidence at this stage as it may influence the trial. 7. Continued imprisonment of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to absolve himself of the charges. Any further incarceration would be to the detriment of the defence of the applicant and contrary to the norms of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. 8. This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held: "Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard." 9. Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. 10.The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 11. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Ankit Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Dhananjai Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad