Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39040 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9207 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Alias Neetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shrivastava,Shiv Bhushan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anurag Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.66 of 2024, under Sections 87, 61(2), 64(1) B.N.S., Police Station Rijor, District Etah, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant regarding missing of his 18 years old daughter since 24.07.2024 at about 1:20 p.m. The victim is stated to have taken away certain ornaments from her house. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name has come up later on in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she seems to be a consenting party as she has gone with the applicant and has not raised any alarm whatsoever and remained there with him for 4-5 days. It has been falsely alleged that the applicant had retained the ornaments of the victim. Learned counsel has further stated that the consent of the victim can also be drawn from the fact that the victim was wearing the clothes given to her by the applicant at the time of recovery. The victim is major aged about 18 years. 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 except one case i.e. Case Crime No.78 of 2024 and the applicant is on bail in that case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.12.2024 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. Learned A.G.A. 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- Ajay Kumar Alias Neetu, 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 :- 19.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad