Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33342 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42063 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohammad Abbubakar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Chaurasia,Khalid Aziz,Mohd Naushad,Syed Irfan Ali 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 10.11.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13.02.2025, the original ossification test report has been received which indicates that the age of the victim is between 18 to 20 years. 3. Office is directed to send the said original ossification test report to the trial court forthwith for placing it on record and the xerox copy may be retained with the instant bail application. 4. Heard Sri Syed Irfan Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2024, under Sections 64 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Airport, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forced the victim into the banana field and had disrobed her and committed rape with her on 27.07.2024 at about 08:00 AM. 7. 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 16 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. Learned counsel has also stated that the age of the victim has deliberately been mentioned as 14 years although she is major. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The consent of the victim can be drawn from the fact that she was completely disrobed by the applicant but there is no sign of any resistance on her part. The statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS are contradictory. 9. 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 05.08.2024 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. 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 and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 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, the age of the victim, delay in lodging the FIR and also 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- Mohammad Abbubakar, 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./ 351BNSS 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:- 7.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad