HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36783 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Ms. Sweta Nishad, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. along with one unknown person, who has been stated to be applicant's elder brother. The F.I.R. alleges that on the alleged date the applicant reached at the house of informant while his daughter was alone, he asked the informant's daughter to open the door of the house upon which she opened the door, thereafter, he started molesting her and when the victim made noise the informant reached there and tried to catch the applicant but he escaped. In her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. the victim has stated that she is 20 years of age, on the date of incident when she opened the door the applicant entered in her house, thereafter, he caught her and also kissed her, thereafter, on coming of her mother the applicant fled away. Thereafter, in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. the victim has made allegation of rape upon the applicant. The victim was medically examined on the next date of alleged incident, wherein the concerned doctor found no dead or alive spermatozoa on her vaginal smear. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of the court to the call recording details of the applicant and the victim wherein on the date of incident, i.e., on 12.08.2025 the applicant and the victim talked on mobile phone for 307 seconds, just before the time of alleged incident, thus, it appears that both the victim and applicant used to talk with each other and the victim was a consenting party and the applicant has been implicated falsely with ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Yadav, Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mahesh Pathak .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 28.08.2025, with no criminal history. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence, but they could not dispute that it appears that victim was a consenting party. 4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 5. Let the applicant-Mahesh Pathak, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2025, under Sections 74, 333, 115(2), 354, 64 of B.N.S., Police Station- Nauhjheel, District- Mathura, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 6. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. October 27, 2025 Mustaqeem. BAIL No. 36783 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad