Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39250 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46015 of 2024 Applicant :- Jaibhagwan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vidya Dhar Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Kailadevi, District Sambhal, 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The closure report was filed in the instant case twice but the same was returned by the authorities, as such, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. The instant case is misuse of process of law. 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. The criminal history of one case of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 32 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that subsequent to the F.I.R. another F.I.R. was instituted by the informant regarding enticing away the same victim. 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 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- Jaibhagwan, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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 Jitendra Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad