Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80293 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43147 of 2024 Applicant :- Nazim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad,Manoj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umair Alam Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Umair Alam, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 314 of 2025, under Sections 64, 333, 351(2) & 351(3) of BNS, Police Station - Kundarki, District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim several times after entering into her house and threatening her. There are allegations that the co- accused person Javed is also stated to have committed the said act with her several times. 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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed as there is no date and time of offence mentioned in it. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is a married lady having five children. The allegations are per se false. It is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is further stated that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. There is no recovery of any video of the victim whatsoever from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.09.2024 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. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant and co- accused person have committed rape with the victim and even clicked her indecent photographs and threatened her, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR coupled by the fact that there is neither the medical corroboration of the incident nor any video has been recovered, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Nazim, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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:- 15.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad