Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85756 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8587 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal 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 7.3.2025 3. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, under Sections 64, 137(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Raksa, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. It is further stated that as per the statement of the victim, she is 16 years old, but by her looks, she seems to be major. 8. It is further argued that the victim is the consenting party, as she had gone with the applicant all the way to Bhopal and stayed there for a substantial period of time and did not raise any alarm, whatsoever. 9. It is further submitted that a bluish green bruise has been observed on the right side of the forehead of the victim measuring 3 cm x 3 cm. The said injury has no relation to the applicant as the victim has nowhere stated that she was subjected to any kind of assault by the applicant. 10. There is a criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant, which stands explained vide supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 11. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 12. 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. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the victim is the consenting party and the delay in institution of FIR, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Shivam Prajapati, 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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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