Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66738 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6176 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajan Saini Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 05.03.2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.436 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 65(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Ghughli, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the victim and had also committed aggravated sexual assault with her on 18.11.2024 at about 11:30 p.m. by taking her away from a marriage procession. 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 12 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are that the applicant forced the victim into oral sex, but the said allegations do not stand substantiated by any evidence. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim has not identified the applicant. The only identification taken up is from the CCTV footage, whereby it is stated that the applicant was identified by his apparel and also by the colour of his clothes. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that there is no test identification as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It is a clear-cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.11.2024 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the facts that there is no test identification as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and the FIR is delayed, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Rajan Saini, 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 29.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad