Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55475 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12289 of 2025 Applicant :- Zahid Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Narain Pathak,R.K.Paramhans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avinash Kumar Singh,G.A.,Subodh Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as 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.523 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 74, 333, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Tarkulwan, District- Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused person Noor Mohd. is stated to have assaulted the victim and her brother on 27.12.2024 and caused injuries to her. The applicant is even stated to have obstructed the way of the victim. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no allegation of rape in the FIR. The said allegation has been levelled after legal consultation in the statements of the victim recorded U/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. out of vengeance. There is no injury sustained by the victim on her internal or external body parts, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified. No injury has been sustained by the brother of the victim either. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained in para-27 of the affidavit filed with bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.12.2024 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 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 of bail is made out. 9. 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. 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- Zahid Ansari, 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 :- 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