Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52025 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8456 of 2025 Applicant :- Roopkishor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Mayank, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 626 of 2024, under Sections 64, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station - Govardhan, District - Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim by taking her to a hotel on 01.12.2024 at 12:15 PM after rendering her unconscious. 5. 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 two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is argued that the prosecution story cannot be believed as it is not possible for a person to take an unconscious person on a motorcycle. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from the circumstances and the statement of the Manager of the said hotel, who has stated that the applicant and the victim came to his hotel and told themselves to be husband and wife. The victim is a married lady and her age is 28 years. Criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained by means of supplementary affidavit filed today in court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.12.2024 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. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 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 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- Roopkishor, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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:- 9.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad