Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25634 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42762 of 2024 Applicant :- Jasveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Shyam Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Surendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0105 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Bhot, District Rampur during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the prosecution story, F.I.R. was instituted by the informant against unknown persons regarding missing of his daughter aged about 17 years since 06.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. F.I.R. is delayed by about more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major. The victim is a consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant to several places, but, subsequently in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. she has levelled altogether different allegations, whereby, she has stated that the applicant spiked her cold drink and had rendered her unconscious and committed rape with her and there are several other contradictory remarks made by her in her statement. The applicant himself is a youth aged about 21 years and a case of consensual corporeal relationship has been converted into criminal case by the informant. 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 15.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 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- Jasveer, 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 :- 20.2.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad