Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61354 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13214 of 2025 Applicant :- Isaraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Yadav,Sapan Kumar Singh,Yasmeen Jahan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 13.4.2025. 3. Heard Sri Sapan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 564 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 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 fifteen days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. It is further stated that the victim, by her looks, seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, she is 15-16 years old. She seems to be the consenting party, as per her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. whereby she had come with the applicant all the way to Prayagraj, although the applicant had not taken her to parents, who reside in Mumbai. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 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- Isaraj, 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 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad