Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48922 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10038 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahabali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose),Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Mary Puncha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashi Ranjan, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasi, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Handia, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant to Delhi and then Haryana although the applicant has forced her to marry him. The name of the applicant has been mentioned in the said statement as Mahaveer. There is no medical evidence to corroborate the prosecution story. 5. 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 7. 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. 8. Let the applicant- Mahabali, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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:- 5.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad