Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50837 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9753 of 2025 Applicant :- Pawan Alias Praveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rateesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rateesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. None is present on behalf of the informant. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 569 of 2024 under Sections 376, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have made an indecent video of the victim while she was taking bath and as such, had established corporeal relationship with her by blackmailing her to make the said video viral on social media. The applicant is stated to have taken 4-5 Lakh Rupee from her and her golden ornaments by blackmailing her. 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 more than a year and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations per se are false. The victim is a married lady and aged about 29 years old and there is no recovery of the video whatsoever. There is no evidence that applicant had taken a single penny or any ornaments from the victim. It is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.01.2025 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 Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Pawan Alias Praveen, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 8.4.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad