Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37674 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6585 of 2025 Applicant :- Suhail And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Shankar Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shiv Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 454 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS and Sections 5g/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Lohiyanagar, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim and the informant have been examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in court and have not supported the prosecution story. They have completely resiled from their earlier statement given to the I.O. and the allegations of the FIR. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no possibility of conviction in the present case under the circumstances. 5. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 28.08.2024 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicants and the witnesses have turned hostile. 7. 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. 8. 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 applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicants- Suhail and Waseem, who are 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 applicants will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicants will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 17.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad