Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24956 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41819 of 2024 Applicant :- Maroof Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Pundir,Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Agrawal Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Agrawal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)N, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, 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. It is next stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently in the statement of the victim recorded at the time of her medical examination and her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the FIR is delayed by about five months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is a clear cut case of false implication as earlier on also, brother and brother-in-law of the applicant were made accused in it. 7. 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 11.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was impregnated by the act of the applicant and she has given birth to a baby boy, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. 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. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account the fact that the FIR is delayed by five months and the name of the applicant does not find mention in it and his name has subsequently come up in the statement of the victim recorded before the doctor and her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS and 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. 11. Let the applicant- Maroof, 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. 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 20.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad