Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35023 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5382 of 2024 Applicant :- Sumit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey,Kiran Rani,Mohit Kumar Singh,Sujata Choudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aditya Kumar Rai,Amit Kumar,Anjali Jaiswal,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Sujata Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0128 of 2023, under Sections 323, 354A, 504, 506, 509, 511, 376 of I.P.C., Police Station - Kankarkhera, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the FIR, the informant is the Lecturer in a private college and is stated to have been called to a restaurant by her student Shubham whereby the applicant and co-accused Rimjhim are stated to have reached along with other family members and had beaten her up and snatched her Vivo Android phone. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the applicant used to blackmail her whereby her job has been terminated. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR does not find mentioned the allegations of rape rather the allegations of outraging her modesty. Subsequently, the allegations of rape have been made in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she has stated that the applicant had raped her many times and recorded the videos of the said indecent act and threatened her to make them viral on social media. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by about 27 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical evidence to corroborate the prosecution story. It was the larger network of the co-accused persons by which the applicant is stated to have taken advantage. All the allegations are per se false. Even the victim herself has provided a pen drive to the Investigating Officer whereby certain indecent photographs and videos of her were found in a compromising state. The case diary mentions that the male partner in the said act could not be identified. Although, the said photographs and videos were found indecent. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is aged about 29 years while the applicant is almost the same age. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The case of consensual relationship has been converted into a criminal one by the informant. 8. 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 02.01.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has 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. 10. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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. 11. 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. 12. Let the applicant- Sumit, 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./ 351BNSS 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. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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:- 10.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad