Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68963 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14591 of 2025 Applicant :- Rohit Patel @ Rohan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Mani,Sachida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 18.04.2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0137 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Badshahpur, District Jaunpur, 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 about two days and was instituted against unknown person. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and she seems to be a consenting party as per that statement. She has gone with the applicant to several places, although she has stated that the corporeal relationship was established sometimes by her will and other times by force. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is 17 years old as per FIR. It is a matter of consensual relationship as the applicant is also a youth aged about 18 years as his date of birth is 24.07.2006 as per high-school certificate. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.3.2025 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. 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 for bail is made out. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, 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- Rohit Patel @ Rohan, 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 :- 1.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad