Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80513 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47096 of 2024 Applicant :- Manish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav,G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Gupta,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 351(2) of BNS, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67B of Information Technology Act, Police Station - Binauli, District - Baghpat, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the named accused person Monu @ Amarjeet is stated to have taken the victim to a tubewell on 01.09.2024 at about 10:00 PM and committed rape with her in the presence of other co-accused persons including the applicant. Subsequent to it, the applicant and other co-accused persons had committed gang rape with her. 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 about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is stated to be minor but is the consenting party as far as the co-accused Priyanshu is concerned. The victim in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS has given a contradictory statement to the FIR which was instituted by the victim herself. She has stated that the applicant and other co-accused persons were standing there and the main accused person Priyanshu had committed rape with her. 7. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has not been assigned the role of committing rape to the victim rather he has been stated to be the person, who sent the alleged indecent video to the mobile of victim's brother. It is argued that the said fact stands falsified from the recovery of the alleged mobile which was made from the co-accused person Monu @ Amarjeet and it has only come up in his confessional statement before police that it was the applicant, who was using his mobile during the intervening period. There is no medical corroboration of the incident either. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that as per high school certificate, the age of the victim was 13 years but she herself has stated her age to be 16 years at the time of recording of her statement u/s 183 BNSS. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.09.2024 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 AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is mentioned in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS that the co-accused person Monu @ Amarjeet has recorded the indecent video of the victim when she was putting on her saree. The applicant is the person, who sent the indecent video of the victim to her brother, as such, he is not entitled for bail. However, learned AGA has not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the name of the applicant has come up in the confessional statement of co-accused person Monu @ Amarjeet of having used his mobile for sending the indecent video of the victim to her brother, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. The case of the applicant stands distinguished to the case of co-accused Priyanshu and Monu @ Amarjeet. 11. Let the applicant- Manish 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 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. 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:- 15.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad