Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37144 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6587 of 2025 Applicant :- Gopi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 125 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Radha Nagar, District - Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have physically abused the grand-daughter of the informant for about one year. On 09.09.2024, the informant came to her house and saw the applicant raping her grand-daughter and on seeing her, the applicant is stated to have run away from the scene of occurrence. 5. 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 four days and even the application given to the S.P. concerned dated 12.09.2024 is delayed by three days and no explanation was given to the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. It is argued that the applicant was given Rs.35,000/- to the informant for treatment of a family member and the instant FIR has been instituted just to usurp the said amount. The victim otherwise seems to be a consenting party as she has not raised any alarm whatsoever rather she was seen with the applicant in a compromising state by the informant. 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 history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.09.2025 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. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the delay in lodging the FIR is self-explained as the informant had gone to the police station but her FIR was not instituted. It is also stated that nobody would foist a false case against any person with the allegations that her minor grand- daughter has been subjected to rape. Even otherwise, the medical report indicates that she might have been subjected to sexual assault, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, delay in lodging the FIR coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident regarding the sexual assault and also 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Gopi, 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. 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:- 17.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad