Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55668 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12346 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikas Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.32 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(2), 352 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Baksha, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forced the victim on gun point to the agricultural field and committed rape with her on 29.1.2025 at about 12:00 noon. When the matter was reported to the family members of the applicant, they are stated to have threatened the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations are per se false. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. No injury has been sustained by the victim on her vital parts neither there is any injury on the body of the victim observed regarding the applicant having dragged her in the agricultural field, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that even the victim in her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. has not whispered a single word about any weapon being carried by the applicant. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained in para-24 of the affidavit filed with bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.2.2025 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 A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that victim was minor aged about 14 years as her date of birth is 1.8.2010 as per the birth certificate as well as Aadhar Card, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The applicant is an accused in a case of murder. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that there is no medical corroboration of the incident coupled by the fact that FIR is delayed by about one day and 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. 10. Let the applicant- Vikas Yadav, 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. 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. 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