Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86109 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11454 of 2025 Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 31.03.2025 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 Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 22 of 2024, under Sections 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the husband of the victim along with his brother Iqbal is stated to have made certain indecent photographs of the victim viral and are stated to have hurled abuses at her and outraged her modesty on 31.12.2023 at about 6:45 a.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 16 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The allegations are per se false. Initially, the allegations were regarding outraging the modesty only but subsequently, they have been escalated to that of rape in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. after legal consultation. The truth is that the victim and the applicant had fallen apart as husband and wife and she has foisted four cases in addition to the instant case against him and the applicant was enlarged on bail in all those cases. 7. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. 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. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in 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. 11. Let the applicant- Nadeem, 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. 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 :- 21.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad