Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29508 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3825 of 2025 Applicant :- Prince @ Vansh Vishnoi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Tripathi,Shiv Shanker Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.418 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 70(2) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Kanth, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have called the victim on her phone, thereby the co-accused persons, namely, Mukul and Harsh, are stated to have enticed her away in the night of 26/27.10.2024 on their bike to the room of one Vivek, whereby the applicant and other co-accused person Vivek are stated to have raped her. On hearing the shrieks of the victim, the sister of Vivek came and knocked the door, whereby the applicant and co-accused person are stated to have sent her and got her concealed behind the window, as such, after sometime she escaped from the clutches of the applicant and co-accused person. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no major injury sustained by the victim. The instant case is a clear-cut case of false implication. As per school certificate, the age of the victim is 16 years, 2 months and 17 days. Learned counsel has further stated that there are several call details of the victim having regular conversations with all the accused persons. 6. 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. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is abrasion observed by the doctor conducting the medical examination of the victim on her neck. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Prince @ Vansh Vishnoi, 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 3.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad