Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85955 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15245 of 2025 Applicant :- Nazim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Gangwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 9.5.2025. 3. Heard Sri Vipin Gangwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.813 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)-M B.N.S. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Izzatnagar, District- Bareilly, 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she has solemnized marriage with the applicant and had established corporeal relationship with him subsequent to it. The victim by her looks seems to be major and she herself stated her to be 22 years old, although she is stated to be 16 years and 07 months old as per the high school certificate. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 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 of 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 FIR and the statement of the victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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- Nazim, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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 :- 21.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad