HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13392 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. None is present on behalf of informant even in the revised call. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Afzal Ansari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Aftab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0165 of 2025, under Section 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(f)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Khalilabad, District - Santkabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and after legal consultations. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the allegations against the applicant of having committed unnatural offence with the victim but there is no evidence of the said offence whatsoever. Even the statement of other students, who were also sleeping in another room, falsifies the prosecution story. 6. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of one case stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.02.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Khan, Gajendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Kumar Rai Aftab Alam .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and delay in lodging the FIR, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Aftab Alam, 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 tfhe 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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. September 15, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 13392 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad