Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39780 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5049 of 2025 Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Jagdish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 12.2.2025. 3. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.571 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 316(2), 351(2) B.N.S., 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sihani Gate, District- Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Anuj is stated to have promised to marry the victim and had subsequently introduced her to the applicant who in turn taken her to a hotel and had book a room on the basis of some fake ID and had committed rape with her. There are allegations that applicant and co-accused persons had taken certain amount from the victim by threatening her. An amount of Rs.18,000/- is stated to have been transferred to the account of the applicant. 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 29 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The said amount was transferred to the account of the applicant as the co-accused person Anuj did not have any facility of UPI transactions in his mobile as he had not installed any mobile application for the same. The said allegations are per se false. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The story as narrated by the victim in her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. cannot be believed. 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. The criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.10.2024 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. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 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- Kuldeep, 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. 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 :- 19.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad