Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70805 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14913 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Prateek Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.400 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have fleeced and fooled the victim and had established corporeal relationship with her and even video recorded the said act and threatened her to make it viral and kept on establishing the said relationship for about ten months. 6. 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 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim kept mum for a period of about ten months and has not whispered a single word about the incident. She has stated that the applicant had video recorded the said act, but there is no recovery of any video whatsoever. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further state that the victim is a married lady having children. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is a case of failed consensual relationship between two major persons. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and has stated that as per his report and the information sent from DCRB, the applicant has no criminal history. 9. 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. 10. 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 coupled with the fact that there is no recovery of any video whatsoever, 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- Rahul, 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 :- 5.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad