Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34400 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8388 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Dwivedi,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.341 of 2024, under Sections 195, 211, 388, 328, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations of rape have been made against the named accused person Shivkumar only and the same allegations have been reiterated in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The applicant has subsequently been made an accused on the basis that the daughter of co-accused Priti is stated to have given the sim card to the applicant, whereby he had misused the said sim card and made indecent photograph of the victim viral on social media with an intention to malign her position in the society. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations are per se false. There is no evidence regarding the applicant having used the said sim card as no IMEI or the details of the mobile instrument has been mentioned by the investigating officer. Even the allegations of I.T. Act have not been levelled at the time of filing of final report (charge-sheet) against the applicant. 6. 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 05.10.2024 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. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 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. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Shivam, 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 :- 10.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad