Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81217 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38844 of 2024 Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Chandra Dwivedi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Third supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.194 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 15 years, on 06.08.2024 at about 8:00 a.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant had surrendered before the court concerned on 28.04.2025 in compliance of the order of this Court dated 24.04.2025. He could not marry the victim as she has refused to do so on account of difference in caste. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as she has travelled with the applicant to several places and has even boarded train for Mumbai and she is stated to have deboarded the train about 70 kilometers before Mumbai alongwith the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The criminal history of two case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident coupled with the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, 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. 12. Let the applicant- Pradeep, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 :- 16.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad