Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69264 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3952 of 2025 Applicant :- Mintoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey,Prakash Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Varun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 641 of 2024, U/S 64, 351(3), 352, 331(4) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, on 26.9.2024 at about 11.40 pm, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim whereby on her raising of alarm, her brother is stated to have woken up, as such, the applicant ran away from the place of occurrence after hurling abuses and threatening them. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Initially, the FIR indicated the offence of attempt to rape only, but the allegations to that of rape have been escalated by the victim in her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., that too after legal consultation. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident of rape either, as the victim has not sustained any injury, whatsoever. By her looks, she seems to be major, although, as per Class X certificate, her date of birth is 8.7.2009, as such, her comes out to be 16 years and 2 months only. 7. There is a criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant, which stands explained, as the said offence is bailable and the applicant got the knowledge of the said summons only after being sent to jail in the instant case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.9.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor and the applicant had barged into her house. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the offence of rape, 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. 11. Let the applicant- Mintoo involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 13. 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 :- 1.5.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad