Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23609 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43901 of 2024 Applicant :- Dhiraj Alias Dhiru Kanaujiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jahnavi Singh,Kauntey Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.830 of 2024, under Sections 74, 76, 351(3), 64(1) B.N.S., Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have inappropriately touched the victim on several dates as a routine. The FIR was instituted on 05.09.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The case of outraging the modesty has been converted to rape by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., which was recorded subsequent to the institution of an FIR on behalf of the applicant. The said FIR No.840 of 2024 was instituted on 07.09.2024 and the statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was recorded on 11.09.2024. Learned counsel has further stated that the said statement has been made after legal consultation just to coerce the applicant into compromise in the said FIR. There is no injury sustained by the victim. She is major aged about 20 years. 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 08.10.2024 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 A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have 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- Dhiraj Alias Dhiru Kanaujiya, 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 :- 19.2.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad