Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48764 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10479 of 2025 Applicant :- Sangam Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Gupta,Laxmi Shankar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(2), 352 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Shyamdeurawa, District Maharajganj during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 17.02.2025 at about 06:30 PM. 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. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as no injury was observed on the body of the victim. The story as narrated by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180(3) B.N.S.S. cannot be believed as she has stated that applicant had taken her to the middle of the village and had committed rape with her in a secluded house. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that victim has raised alarm, but nobody hear her shrieks. She is 18 years old as per ossification test report. The history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as the said offence is bailable. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2025 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are two witnesses who have stated that it was the applicant who had committed rape with the victim.. 8. 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. 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- Sangam Nishad, 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 :- 5.4.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad