Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85774 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9042 of 2025 Applicant :- Sumit Alias Tinku Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 18.3.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 247 of 2023, under Sections 363, 368, 366, 376 and 506 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2) (v), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim and the informant have been examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively, in court and have not supported the prosecution story, although, they have not been declared hostile by the public prosecutor but there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had committed the said offence. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case under the circumstances. 6. There is a criminal history of nine cases assigned to the applicant, which stands explained in paragraph 7 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.6.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and the fact that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution story, 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- Sumit Alias Tinku Yadav, 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. 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 :- 21.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad