Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26329 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45233 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anjali Jaiswal,Dhirendra Kumar Verma,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.401 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4(20 POCSO Act, Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur, 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, in the evening of 14.09.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the victim has stated that she was bitten by the applicant at several parts of her body, but the said fact does not stand corroborated from the medical report. Learned counsel has further stated that no injury has been observed by the doctor conducting her medical examination, although it has been conducted after a lapse of four days. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although her age is 16 years as per ossification test report. 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 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 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- Mohit, 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