Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24935 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42051 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajkumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 184 of 2024, under Sections 376, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 12.05.2024 at 2 p.m. 6. 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 is delayed by about one and half months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved on 21.05.2024 which delayed by nine days and there is no explanation of the said delay. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the allegations made against the applicant. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major, although she is stated to be 16 years. Nevertheless, age has no significance as there is no medical corroboration of the incident. 8. 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. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Let the applicant- Rajkumar, 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. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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