Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32870 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 754 of 2025 Applicant :- Makhan Savita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Dixit,Priti Verma,Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi,G.A.,Sushmita Tripathi,Yadvendra Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.348 of 2024 (Session Case No.1333 of 2024), under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 I.P.C. and 5/7 POCSO Act, Police Station- Naubasta, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage. The applicant is stated to have got the fetus of the victim aborted twice and had subsequently refused to comply with the said promise. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is major as per her looks and as per the school certificate, her date of birth is 13.6.2004, as such, on the date of FIR, she was major about 20 years old. But the allegations have been made that applicant had physical relationship with the victim for about three years just to make the case fall within the purview of POCSO Act. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding the victim being impregnated by the applicant or her fetus being aborted by the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim herself has stated that the applicant is her relative and had subsequently stated that she did not have the knowledge that applicant was already married. The said statement of the victim is self-contradictory. 7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.7.2024 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. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is relative of the informant and is already a married person, as such, had committed the said offence deliberately. The applicant has two children from her earlier marriage, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 9. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration that there is no medical corroboration of the incident coupled with the fact that the FIR is delayed and the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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- Makhan Savita, 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 :- 6.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad