Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33542 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2884 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Shukla,Ram Shiromani Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Darwari Lal,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Sri Abhinav Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 343 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)M, 61 B.N.S. and 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station- C.B. Ganj, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, whereby the victim complained of pain to her mother and it was revealed after her ultrasound examination that she was pregnant by three months. The victim was ready to marry the co-accused person Bhura, but thereupon the said accused person Bhura had refused to marry her. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants have been assigned the role of having enticed away the victim and they have not been assigned the role of having raped the victim. The allegations of rape have been made against co-accused person Bhura only. Subsequently in the statement recorded U/s 180 B.N.S.S., the victim has categorically stated that she was ravished several times by co-accused person Bhura and the applicants used to take her to the agricultural field in which there were several eucalyptus trees. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that the statement of the victim U/s 183 B.N.S.S. could not be recorded as the victim was put to death by her father and the FIR was instituted as FIR No.345 of 2024, under Section 103(2) B.N.S. on the application moved by the brother of the deceased person. The role of the applicants is at different footing to the main accused person Bhura. The age of the victim was 17 years as per her school certificate. 7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 11.8.2024 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 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, taking into consideration that the role of the applicants is at different footing to co-accused person Bhura and in light of 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 applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicants- Anil and Anuj who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them 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 applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad