Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25303 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43127 of 2024 Applicant :- Shyam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Badan Maurya,Surendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ram Badan Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 3. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 28.10.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2017, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri, 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 FIR was instituted on flimsy ground against the applicant on 23.07.2017. After thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer was pleased to file closure report in the instant case on 17.08.2017. Subsequently, a protest petition was filed by the informant and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 06.12.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the informant preferred a revision to the said rejection of his protest petition and the same was allowed in compliance of the said order passed in criminal revision on 28.04.2022. The trial court summoned the applicant and other co-accused persons on 09.06.2022 and on 08.12.2022, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. The applicant has cooperated during trial. The said case is a case of false implication as the Investigating Officer has filed a closure report against the applicant. 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. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2024 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Let the applicant- Shyam Singh, 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. 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 :- 20.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad