Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51155 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9684 of 2025 Applicant :- Roshan Alias Rohan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Dutt Shukla 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 22.11.2024. 3. Heard Sri Uma Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Session Case No.2495 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.482 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Shahganj, District- Agra, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim has not allayed any allegations of rape against the applicant. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. She is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 17 years old as per own statement. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024 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 A.G.A. has 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, 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- Roshan Alias Rohan, 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 :- 9.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad