Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74673 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14400 of 2025 Applicant :- Meghnath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Tiwari,Sangam Lal Kesharwani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 436 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64, 352, 351(2) of BNS, Sections 4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Fatehganj West, District - Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 09.11.2024 at about 09:00 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 17 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that it is a clear cut case of false implication as the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution story rather it falsifies it. It is further argued that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained in the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 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. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay of 17 days in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Meghnath, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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:- 8.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad