Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53613 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11902 of 2025 Applicant :- Haribabu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Kishan,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.57 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 85, 88, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal (Bheem Nagar), during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have sexually assaulted her daughter-in-law the victim/informant herein on 09.02.2025 who was pregnant for about two months and thereby caused her miscarriage, as such, the victim was bleeding too much since then. 5. The applicant and other family members are stated to have sent the victim off from their house on 13.02.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about seven days from the date of offence of rape as alleged to have been caused by the applicant. The FIR is further delayed by about three days from the date of sending of the victim from the house by the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no medical corroboration of the offence of rape, although the victim has sustained certain injuries, which can be self inflicted. No duration of the said injuries has been mentioned as they do not stand corroborated by the instant incident. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that it is a misuse of dowry laws. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599 has categorically opined that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Let the applicant- Haribabu, 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. 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 :- 11.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad