Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36525 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6590 of 2025 Applicant :- Tejvir Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.12 of 2025, under Sections 87, 64(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Jahangirabad, District- Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 25 years on 11.12.2024. 5. 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 27 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. The victim is major and her age has come out to be 16 & 1/2 years as per her high school certificate. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is true that the victim had sustained fracture on her radius bone of left forearm. The said injury has to be explained by the prosecution as there is no allegation of assault against the applicant in the statement of the victim. 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 19.1.2025 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 and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the son of the maternal uncle of the victim, as such, his relationship with the victim falls within the prohibited degrees, as such, the said relationship does not carry any sanctity in the eyes of law. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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, taking into consideration that both the parties are major though the said relationship falls within the prohibited degree of relationship coupled by the fact that the FIR is delayed by about 27 days and 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- Tejvir Singh, 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 :- 12.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad