Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26160 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42463 of 2024 Applicant :- Sandeep Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamala Shanker Singh,Ram Lakhan Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akash Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Lakhan, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.184 of 2023, under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station Machhli Sahar, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant on 25.07.2023. The informant had filed a missing report at the police station on 08.07.2023. Subsequent to it, the police is stated to have retrieved the victim from Kolhapur, Maharashtra on 21.07.2023, as such, the FIR was instituted by the informant on 25.07.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about twenty days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is evident from the fact that she had gone with the applicant all the way to Kolhapur and had travelled several places with him and had not raised any alarm whatsoever. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is 20 years old as is admitted by both the parties. The applicant is in jail since 26.07.2023 and the trial is not moving ahead a single step as no witness has been examined to date. 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. 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 A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is not moving ahead as it is the applicant who is not letting the witnesses to depose in court. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 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- Sandeep Maurya, 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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 :- 24.2.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad