Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30271 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4795 of 2025 Applicant :- Satyendra Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Awaneesha Kumar,Mahesh Kumar Sahani,Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raja Sahani Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.466 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64, 352, 127(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Gauribazar, District- Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant in collusion with other co-accused person is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years on 11.10.2024 at about 07:30 p.m. 6. 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 about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major and as per the ossification test report also her age has come out to be 19 years. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she was taken away by the brothers of the applicant Sravan and Manish and they had given her some medicine, thereby led her to miscarriage. She has further stated that she had married the applicant in a temple, but the applicant had refused to accept the said marriage. There are no allegations made against the applicant in the said statement regarding the date of incident i.e. 11.10.2024. 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 antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.11.2024 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. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Satyendra Nishad, 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./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. 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 :- 4.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad