Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87917 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7208 of 2025 Applicant :- Anand Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 15.02.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2025, under Sections 64, 333, 352, 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Dakshintola, District Mau, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant on 05.01.2025 at about 2:20 pm. and had committed rape with his daughter thereby sister of the informant had seen the incident and raised alarm, and as such his sister-in-law (bhabhi) had closed the door from outside but family members of the applicant reached there and retrieved him from the house. 6. 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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel has also stated that the allegations are per se false. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as the victim has sustained no injury. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The victim by her looks seems to be major and as per ossification test report, victim is aged about 19 years. 8. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 10. 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Anand 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 shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 :- 23.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad