Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66058 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12079 of 2025 Applicant :- Mithun Nau Alias Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Babu,Uma Shanker Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Sri Ram Babu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the informant and has stated that he has instructions from the informant and has filed his Vakalatnama in the Registry on 28.04.2025 at 4:00 p.m. and has prayed for adjournment today. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has objected to the said act of the counsel for the informant and has stated that on the previous date on 21.04.2025, the case was adjourned at the request of other counsel for the informant Sri Laxman Singh and today's date was fixed. 4. Today, Sri Laxman Singh, learned counsel for the informant is present and stated that he has no instructions from the informant, as such, his name may be deleted from the array of opposite party. 5. The said act of learned counsels for the informant is deprecated. 6. The adjournment sought by Sri Ram Babu, learned counsel for the informant is refused. 7. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Babu, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 8. Applicant seeks bail in Special Case No.57 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2017, under Section 376D I.P.C., Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR was instituted on 08.04.2017 for outraging the modesty and under POCSO Act by the informant and the applicant was not named in it. During investigation, the name of the applicant had come up, but after thorough investigation, the investigating officer did not find the complicity of the applicant in the said case, as such, the final report (charge-sheet) was filed against the named accused person Sunil Dhobi only. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that after the statement of the witnesses, the applicant has been summoned by invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 and he had surrendered before the court on 13.02.2025. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground that he was not named in the FIR and no final report (charge-sheet) was submitted against him. The order dated 22.11.2023 of the Trial Court is without application of mind. 11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 12. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and even the final report (charge-sheet) did not mention the applicant to be one of the accused person, 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- Mithun Nau Alias Arvind Kumar, 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. 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 :- 29.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad