Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40214 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9338 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey,G.A.,Raj Kishor Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.231 of 2024, under Sections 127(2), 137(2), 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Girwan, District- Banda, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forcibly taken the daughter of the informant by rendering her unconscious making her inhale certain obnoxious material on 1.8.2024 at about 10:00-11:00 p.m. when she had gone to ease herself out. The applicant is stated to have raped her for several days. After much persuasion and intervention of the police, the applicant and victim are stated to have been retrieved. The police has released the applicant after keeping him in lockup for one day, as such, subsequently the FIR was instituted by the informant on 9.8.2024. 5. 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 about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is major, although as per the ossification test report her age has come out to be 17 years. As per the family register, which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed with bail application, she was 20 years old. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The statement of the victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. cannot be believed as it is filled up with several embellishments. 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 antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.9.2024 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. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no medical corroboration of the incident and also taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. and 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- Mahesh Kumar Verma, 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 :- 20.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad