Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33619 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3658 of 2025 Applicant :- Uday @ Udha Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Neetu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 03.02.2025. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.128 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376(2)N, 376D I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the applicant alongwith co-accused person Rohit had enticed away his minor daughter on 27.03.2024 at about 2:30 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 about more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim was recovered by the police and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that she was in love with the co-accused person Rohit and had gone with both the accused persons all the way to Himanchal and she was rendered unconscious by spiking her drink and had deposed regarding the journey in detail as she had mentioned the name of places i.e. Baghpat, Ambala, Kalka etc. She has subsequently stated that the applicant had also ravished her. The said statement has been made after legal consultation. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the co- accused person Rohit has been enlarged on bail by the trial court itself as he was juvenile. The applicant is also a youth aged about 18 years. The victim was found to be 16-17 years old. It was a case of consensual relationship between two adolescents and the name of the applicant has been subsequently added. 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 history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.05.2024 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. 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. 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 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- Uday @ Udha 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. 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 :- 7.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad