Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39536 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4121 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Moni Gupta Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 7.2.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Akshay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moni Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 094 of 2024, under Sections 87, 137(2), 65(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station -Bakewar, District - Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as she had travelled with the applicant to several places and has not raised any alarm whatsoever. The victim by her looks seems to be major although as per her own statement, she was 17 years old before the medical officer. 7. 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 14.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.4 have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 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- Raj Yadav, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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:- 19.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad