Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60262 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11226 of 2025 Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 24.03.2025. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.194 of 2022, under Sections 376, 511, 506 I.P.C. and Section 9m/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was enlarged on bail in the instant case after being incarcerated for about five months, but inadvertently he could not attend the court, as such, non-bailable warrant was issued against him on 17.01.2023. The applicant was arrested and was sent to jail on 28.11.2023 and is incarcerated since then. He is a labourer and had gone to attend his work. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has not misused the opportunity granted earlier on and he is ready to cooperate with trial in future also. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Raju, 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. 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 :- 22.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad