Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67983 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6635 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahesh Meena Alias Mahesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Tabrez Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 892 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Nandgaram, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about two years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the application in compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. was moved after a delay of about 11 months and the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after a delay of one year. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is 33 years old married lady, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as the victim has refused to conduct her medical examination. Criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is a very powerful person in the locality and has threatened the victim on whatsapp to face dire consequences, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the age of the victim, no medical corroboration of the incident and the delay in lodging the FIR coupled with the judgement passed in Prabhakar Tewari (supra), I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Mahesh Meena Alias Mahesh Kumar, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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:- 30.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad