Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50730 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47240 of 2024 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.179 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 70(2) B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Hajaratnagar, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. 4. The FIR was instituted by the informant regarding missing of his daughter since 06.10.2024, 5:00 p.m. 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 four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has allayed the allegations of gang-rape against the applicant and co- accused persons, namely, Gulzar and Faisal. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. As per ossification test report, the age of the victim has come out to be 18 years. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.10.2024 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 A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor. As per FIR, she is 14 years old and as per family register also, she was 14 years old, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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, taking into consideration the facts that the FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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- Raj Kumar, 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 :- 8.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad