Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80139 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16391 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Awasthi,Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 6.5.2025. 3. Heard Sri Krishna Dutt Awasthi, 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.06 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Sarai Memrez, District- Prayagraj, 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 nine 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. She has denied having been taken away by the applicant in the instant case rather she has stated that earlier on she had gone with the applicant to Surat and had stayed there for about two months. The victim is major aged about 18 years as per the ossification test report. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. 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 victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. coupled by the fact that she is major aged about 18 years as per ossification test report, 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 Patel, 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 :- 15.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad