Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30093 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43640 of 2024 Applicant :- Govind Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.391 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 14 years, on 13.04.2024 with an intention to marry her. He is even stated to have taken her all the way to Gujarat. 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 three months from the date of missing of the victim and it is delayed by about one month from the date of her recovery and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the application to the SSP was moved on 24.07.2024, which itself is delayed by about 24 days. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per Class-Vth school certificate, her age has come out to be 14 years, 5 months and 29 days as her date of birth is 01.01.2010. The said document cannot be taken into consideration in light of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim has refused her ossification test as is evident from the report received from C.J.M., Ballia. She is a consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that the applicant had refused to marry her in Gujarat, as such, she was dropped near her house by him. 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 19.10.2024 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 State Law Officer 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- Govind Chauhan, 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 :- 4.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad