HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41993 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Notice was issued to the informant on 27.11.2025. Despite service of notice none present on behalf of informant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Piyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajni Kant Rai, learned AGA for the State. 4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 76, 70(2), 308(2) BNS, Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Section 66E I.T. Act and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Whyndhamganj, District Sonbhadra during pendency of the trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, as per school record, victim was about 13 years 8 months old but she did not even disclose the name of applicant in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS. 6. He further submits, even from her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS it reflects, there is no allegation of rape against applicant and according to victim co-accused Pradeep Kumar committed rape upon her. 7. He further submits, however, as per statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS applicant made video of the victim but during investigation no such video of the victim could be recovered. He further submits, as applicant is friend of co-accused Pradeep Kumar, therefore, he has been made accused in the present matter. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sujeet Yadav Alias Devnath Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 8. He further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in the present matter he is in jail since 29.08.2025 i.e. for last more than six months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, victim appears to be 13 years 8 months old girl but there is no allegation of rape against applicant even in the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS and according to this statement co-accused Pradeep Kumar committed rape upon her. 12. Further, victim in her earlier statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS did not disclose the name of applicant and she stated that she loved the co-accused Pradeep Kumar and wanted to perform marriage with him. 13. Further, considering the fact that applicant is friend of co-accused Pradeep Kumar, the reason of false implication of the applicant disclosed by learned counsel for applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in the present matter he is in jail since 29.08.2025 i.e. for last more than six months. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant -Sujeet Yadav @ Devnath Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. BAIL No. 41993 of 2025 2 (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. March 18, 2026 AK Pandey BAIL No. 41993 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad