Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68164 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45858 of 2024 Applicant :- Shivam Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neelabh Srivastava Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Shanker, Advocate holding brief of Sri Neelabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.328 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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 a married lady and she has levelled the allegations of rape against the applicant having been committed in past when she was minor. The said allegations are false. There is no allegation of rape in the FIR. The allegations have been escalated at the stage of recording of statement of victim U/s 183 B.N.S.S. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as he is on bail since 27.9.2022 in the said Case Crime No.69 of 2022 registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.7.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that there is no allegation of rape in the FIR and the allegations have been escalated subsequently coupled by the fact that criminal antecedent of the applicant stands explained, 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. 9. Let the applicant- Shivam Saxena, 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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 :- 30.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad