Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32437 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3497 of 2025 Applicant :- Pappu Alias Munna Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record. 3. As per the report of CJM Azamgarh dated 20.2.2025, notice to the informant has been served. 4. Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.521 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 123 B.N.S. and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station -Saraimeer, District-Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person, namely, Abhishek are stated to be outraged the modesty of the daughter of the informant on 2.10.2024 at about 1:00 p.m. 7. 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 more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. In the FIR, there are allegations of outraging the modesty only, but subsequently, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she has escalated the allegation to that of rape. The said allegations have been made after legal consultation. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as victim has not sustained any external or internal injury. 8. 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. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that FIR is not an encyclopedia of events and the police in order to get its record has not instituted the FIR with the allegation of rape, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail as the victim is 14 years old only. 10. 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. 11. 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 fact that the FIR did not mention the allegations of rape in it coupled by the fact that the FIR itself is delayed by more than one day and also 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. 12. Let the applicant- Pappu Alias Munna Vishwakarma, 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. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 :- 6.3.2025 LN Tripathi Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad