Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87577 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15595 of 2025 Applicant :- Raman Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Chandra,Surya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surabhi Soni Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. On the previous date, learned counsel for the informant had stated that the applicant has criminal antecedents to his credit, but he could not furnish the FIRs of the said criminal history. Today, he is absent and his absence speaks volume that he has nothing to say about the criminal antecedents, as such, the matter is being heard on merits. 3. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mayank Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 30.04.2025. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.195 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 115(2), 352, 351, 65(1) B.N.S., Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 6. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that his daughter used to talk with the applicant on mobile and he suspected that she might have gone with the applicant on 11.11.2024 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 7. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 8. It is a clear-cut case of false implication as no time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. 9. The FIR itself is delayed by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused either. 10. The statement of the victim was recorded by the Investigating Officer and she has categorically denied being taken away or having gone with the applicant whatsoever in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. 11. Subsequent to it, the police was pleased to file a closure report qua the applicant on 16.12.2024, but with the intervention of Circle Officer, the matter was sent back for further investigation and as such supplementary statement of the informant under Section 180 B.N.S.S. was recorded on 01.03.2025 and subsequent to it, the statements of the mother of the victim and that of the victim herself were recorded on 03.03.2025 and the same day, the supplementary statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was recorded by the Magistrate concerned and the victim and her family members have totally changed the prosecution story and have nominated the applicant to have committed rape with the victim when she had gone to the agricultural field to attend to call of nature. 12. The said statements have been garnered as an afterthought just to somehow implicate the applicant and keep him incarcerated . 13. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The medical examination itself has been conducted after a delay of about three and half months as she was medically examined on 08.03.2025. 14. The victim is stated to be 15 years old. It is true that she is minor, but being a clear-cut case of false implication, the applicant is entitled for bail. 15. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.03.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT: 16. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. CONCLUSION: 17. 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 there being 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. 18. Let the applicant- Raman Kumar 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 23.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad