Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21962 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38615 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kiran Chaudhary,Sunil Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajiv Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kiran Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.220 of 2024, under Sections 64K, 65(2), 74, 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 9K, 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim and the informant have been examined during trial as PW-1 and PW-2 and they completely resiled from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the facts that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the victim and informant have turned hostile. 6. 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. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the victim and the informant have turned hostile, 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. 8. Let the applicant- Vinod, 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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 :- 17.2.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad