Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36254 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37584 of 2024 Applicant :- Sameer Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi,G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.170 of 2024, under Section 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Dankour, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that his daughter was not traceable in the house, as such, he went to the house of his brother, whereby the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have fired at him and the said gun-shot hit his daughter instead on 23.06.2024 at about 9:35 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 about 10 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that subsequently the informant has been implicated as an accused for attempting to commit the murder of his daughter as against the allegations made in the FIR and subsequently after the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is stated that the applicant had raped her. Learned counsel has further stated that the said allegations of rape have been made after legal consultation and deliberations. The victim is 15 years old as per her statement before the doctor. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is contradictory statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.06.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 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. 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 facts that the prosecution story has gone topsy turvy and has changed altogether during investigation and the FIR being delayed by 10 hours, and taking into consideration 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. 10. Let the applicant- Sameer, 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 :- 12.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad