Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38057 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7885 of 2025 Applicant :- Muskan Alias Mala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Pandey,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.08 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 70(2), 61(2) B.N.S., Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 Immoral Traffic Act, Police Station- Ramgarhtal, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and her name has come up in the statement of co-accused person, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The applicant is a lady and has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.2.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Muskan Alias Mala, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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 her in accordance with law. 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 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 :- 18.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad