HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42363 of 2025 Court No. - 65 (Sl. No.29 out of 262) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surya Pratap Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Namrata Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2025, under Sections 64, 351(3), 137(2), 87 BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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 four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim has stated in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. that she has been sexually molested by the applicant for about four years but she did not report the matter as the applicant carried a knife. The story as narrated by her cannot be believed. She by her looks seems to be major although she has stated her age to be 17 years. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.6.2025 and he is ready Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Namrata Shukla, Sanjay Kumar Yadav Arbaz @ Arbaz Shah .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for opposite party no.4 have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in FIR, there being no medical corroboration of the incident 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. 8. Let the applicant- Arbaz @ Arbaz Shah, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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. April 2, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 42363 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad