Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35705 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45296 of 2024 Applicant :- Gaurav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 04.12.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 142, 65(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Madavara, District - Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that she was administered some noxious material by the applicant and she had the apprehension that some indecent act might have been committed with her on 06.09.2024 at 01:00 AM. 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 by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no allegation of rape levelled in the FIR but subsequently in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS, the allegations of rape have been added. She has also stated that the applicant was pulled her by her hand and taken her to his house and after administering some noxious material to her, he raped there. It is argued that the victim has not raised any alarm whatsoever from the said place of pulling by her hand into the house of the applicant. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the instant FIR is counterblast to the FIR No.565 of 2012 u/s 306 IPC, P.S. Madavara, Lalitpur in which grand-mother of the victim was implicated and she was acquitted vide order dated 01.10.2021. It is also stated that there is no medical evidence to corroborate the prosecution story. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although, she is stated to be 17 years old. 7. 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 09.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Gaurav, 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./ 351BNSS 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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:- 11.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad