HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12114 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri V.K. Shahi, learned AAG assisted by Shri Anurag Verma, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant who seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.0262 of 2024, under Section 376DA, 506 IPC & Section 5g(j)(ii)(I)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Pura Kalandar, District Ayodhya. 3. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024. While rejecting the said application, directions were issued that the statement of the victim be recorded under Section 35(1) of POCSO Act within a period of 30 days. It was further directed that the Director, FSL shall ensure the forensic examination of the mobile and submit the report within four weeks. The Court had also taken into consideration the political clout of the applicant and observed that enlarging the applicant on bail at that stage can adversely affect the trial. 4. While arguing the present second bail application, submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that all the witnesses have been examined which fact is also fortified by learned AAG by arguing that trial is at the verge of completion and at the stage of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ripu Daman Shahi, Arpan Prakash Srivastava, Arun Sinha, Ram Chandra Singh, Ripu Daman Shahi, Saurabh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishana Kumar Singh Moid Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. My attention is also drawn to the statement of the victim recorded during trial as well as cross-examination. Although, the victim supported the prosecution in her statement, however, in her cross-examination, she specifically stated that she was not aware as to how her statement was recorded under Section 183 BNSS wherein she had made allegations against the applicant. She also denied that the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not given by her and she was not aware as to how the same was recorded. Although, she endorsed her statement with regard to videos being made by the co-accused Raju from the mobile phone of the applicant, she also stated that the statement given by her before the Magistrate was under the threat and coercion by the police authority and the family members. 6. In the light of the said statement, my attention is also drawn to the forensic report of the mobile phone alleged used and belonging to the applicant from which the video was made while the offence was committed. The said FSL report filed as Annexure - RA 5 to the rejoinder affidavit, does not indicate presence of any such video. 7. On overall consideration, it emerges that the FIR in question was lodged alleging that the wrong was committed on the victim in the bakery owned by the applicant and where she had gone at the instance of co- accused Raju. 8. In view of the subsequent developments to the effect that all the witnesses have been examined, in the cross examination the victim has not supported the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the FSL report with regard to paternity of the fetus matches with that of the co-accused and the FSL report of the mobile phone does not indicate presence of any video as was alleged in the prosecution, coupled with the fact that once the trial is at the final stage, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, can have any adverse effect on trial as also considering the age of the applicant to be around 72 years, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Moid Ahmad be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: BAIL No. 12114 of 2024 2 (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 10. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of bail only and will have no effect on trial. October 16, 2025 nishant BAIL No. 12114 of 2024 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench