Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88252 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10180 of 2025 Applicant :- Saddam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwa Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 30.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, holding brief of Sri Vishwa Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2024, under Sections 376A, 376B IPC and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Tiwaripur, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the minor daughter of the informant aged about 5 years by fleecing her on the ground of giving her water balls on 11.05.2024 at about 2:30 p.m 6. 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 2 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident as the mother of the victim has refused her medical examination. The same version was reiterated by the victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. but after legal consultation, allegations have been escalated to that of rape in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. It is a clear cut case of false implication. It is further stated that as the applicant and father of the victim both are water ball sellers as their stalls are adjacent to each other and they have enmity owing to water ball customers. 8. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.05.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 10. 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Saddam, 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 :- 23.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad