Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12896 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2495 of 2025 Applicant :- Dileep Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 08.01.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2024, under Sections 376DA, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5G/6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67 of IT Act Police Station Pakadi, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against the named accused persons namely Anand Chauhan and Rajendra Chauhan of outraging the modesty of minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years on 24.05.2024 at about 8 p.m. when she had gone to ease herself out. 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. It is further stated that the FIR is delayed by about 14 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR. It is next stated that the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer and the name of the applicant does not find place in it. The name of the applicant, for the first time, has come up in the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer whereby she has stated that the applicant and co-accused persons had video recorded the said act. 7. Learned counsel has further argued that the said allegations are per se false and the story has been cooked up to falsely implicate the applicant. There is no recovery of any video from the possession of the applicant or any other person whatsoever. 8. 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. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the indecent video has been provided to the Investigating Officer by transferring it in the pendrive by the informant, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 11. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said video, if any, does not indicate that it was recorded by the applicant. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had video recorded the said act. 12. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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. 13. 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. 14. Let the applicant- Dileep Chauhan, 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. 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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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 :- 24.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad