Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70275 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39765 of 2024 Applicant :- Mirkalu @ Jashwant Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alind Kumar,Jai Singh,Kiran Rani,Laloo Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 04.11.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Alind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2024, under Sections 74, 351(3), 64 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Harpur Budhat, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the allegations in the FIR were regarding the outraging of modesty only and the same were reiterated by the victim in her statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS. The allegations of rape have been foisted for the first time on the applicant at the stage of recording of statement of the victim u/s 183 BNSS that too after legal consultations. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is further stated that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, period of incarceration, nature of offence, pending trial and also considering the statement of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Mirkalu @ Jashwant, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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:- 2.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad