Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56074 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11521 of 2025 Applicant :- Lalit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2025, under Sections 70(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Khatauli, District- Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person Monu are stated to have committed gang-rape with the victim by taking her to the house of one of their friends on 1.1.2025 at about 09:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim has not allayed the allegations of rape in her statement recorded U/s 180 B.N.S.S., but in the statement U/s 183 B.N.S.S. she has categorically stated that she was given cigarette by the applicant, whereby she went topsy-turvy and she was gang raped by the applicant and co-accused person. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per the school certificate of Class-Xth her date of birth is 12.8.2007, by which her age comes out to be 17 years, 04 months and 11 days, as such, she is marginally less than the age of majority. Although, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance on the statement of one constable and Sub-Inspector of the police station who have stated that they had seen the applicant and the victim puffing cigarette on road on the alleged date of incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.1.2025 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. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the police is hand in glove with the applicant and the said statements cannot be relied as at one hand they are stating that they had seen the applicant and victim puffing cigarette on road, but on the other hand they are letting the FIR instituted at the police station. 9. Learned State Law Officer has also opposed the bail application. 10. 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the statement of the police personnel coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, and 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- Lalit, 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 :- 16.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad