Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39691 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3631 of 2025 Applicant :- Aditya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey 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 05.01.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Janakpuri, District - Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. 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. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she has stated that she had married the applicant. The victim by her looks seems to be major and as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 19 years. It is also stated that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained in the rejoinder affidavit filed today. 7. 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.09.2024 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, 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- Aditya, 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. 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:- 19.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad