Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38339 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45110 of 2024 Applicant :- Subas Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Parvesh Kumar Pandey,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey,Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Pandey,Manish Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, Sri Parvesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, Sri Krishna Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for the informant, 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.73 of 2024, under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Unj, District Bhadohi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that her tea was spiked by the applicant in collusion with co-accused person Anchal and had committed rape with her and had taken certain indecent photographs and video of her and had threatened her to make them viral on social media and even promised to marry her, as such, kept on establishing the said relationship. Subsequently it was revealed that the applicant was already a married person. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is major aged about 29 years and a consenting party. It is a clear-cut case of false implication as it was a matter of consensual relationship. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. 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 24.10.2024 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 counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant has been falsely implicated in another case by the family members of the applicant. 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- Subas Bind, 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 :- 18.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad