Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25281 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43619 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey,Ram Chandra Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manju Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Manju Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Services Committee and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 04.11.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, Police Station Balrai, District Etawah, 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 is delayed by about 35 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is stated to be 15 years and 1 month old. 6. 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 28.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Services Committee has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the father of the victim used to live outside, as such the FIR was instituted only after he returned home. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Rahul, 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. 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 :- 20.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad