Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62968 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37781 of 2024 Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kalp Dev Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. The FSL report filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.219 of 2024, under Sections 69 B.N.S. and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Dilari, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has inadvertently mentioned the date when the applicant went to jail as 22.8.2022 while the actual date is 22.8.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the matter has been settled between the parties. The victim is major aged about 18 years. The said fact stands fortified by the short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant. As such, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 22.8.2024, having no criminal antecedent to his credit, is entitled for bail. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have not disputed the said facts. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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- Salman, 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 :- 24.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad