Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68527 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13262 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Parmeshwar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice has been served to the informant on 16.4.2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Special Session Trial No. 353 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 77 of 2024, U/S 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and 5J(2)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 14 years, on 8.3.2024 at about 4.30 pm. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim, by her looks, seems to be major, although she is 16 years as per ossification test report conducted in the year 2023, as earlier on also, the similar FIR was instituted by the same informant against the applicant. The victim was major at the time of the instant offence. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 7. Except the said case instituted against the applicant by the same informant, he has no other criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.2.2025. 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. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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- Sunil involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 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 :- 1.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad