Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61740 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12123 of 202 Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Narayan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vikas Narayan Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0045 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(m), 137(2), 87, 115(2), 352 B.N.S. and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 26.01.2025 at about 11:00 p.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 about 2 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. She by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 17 years old as per her own statement. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is ready to take care of the victim and the offspring in her womb. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as the said offence is bailable. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor, as such, her consent, if any, cannot be taken into consideration and she was pregnant at the time of recovery. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Abhishek 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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