Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61582 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12184 of 2025 Applicant :- Salim Alias Salimuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mumtaz Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mumtaz Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.355 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(N), 120B I.P.C. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Anupshahr, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44381 of 2024 and later on, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted in the added Sections of 376(2)(N), 120 I.P.C. and 5L/6 POCSO Act. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier on and has cooperated during trial and is ready to do so in future also. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2024. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on paragraph 16 of the judgement of this Court passed in 2013 (1) ACR 368 (Chandrama @ Magram Yadav and Another vs. State of U.P.), which reads hereinunder:- "16. Before parting we would also like to express our anguish over the disturbing fact coming to our notice through correction applications which are being filed in this Court that some subordinate courts are insisting the pairokars of prisoners to get full description of offences, crime number and Section of Indian Penal code and other Acts incorporated in the bail orders which are being passed by this Court in spite of there being a Case No. or S.T. No. of the trial court mentioned in them for proper reference and identification. They are refusing to accept the bail bonds on this pretext which are being tendered to them and such insistence in turn is compelling those prisoners to move correction applications before this Court for making correction in its bail orders which is not only increasing an unnecessary work load upon this Court but also adding miseries to the suffering of those prisoners. If there is sufficient reference of the concerned case or S.T. Number in which Bail is being granted by this Court any insistence on the part of courts below for getting other details also incorporated in the bail order cannot be held to be justified. From the reference of the Case/ ST number other details can be ascertained by the subordinate courts from their own record which normally remains available with them and in case any uncertainty still exists in the mind of any Presiding Officer he may ask for any other information to be furnished by the applicant instead of rejecting his application for want of those details in the bail order of this Court and forcing him to get the same corrected. Such a misdemeanour may be dealt with seriously by this Court. However, it is once again made clear that release orders whenever being issued must contain all relevant details." 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the judgment placed by the counsel for the applicant 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. 9. Let the applicant- Salim Alias Salimuddin, 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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 :- 23.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad