Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85186 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17541 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kuldeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.508 of 2024, U/S 70(1), 131, 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Saraikhawaja, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant alongwith co-accused persons are stated to have forcibly entered into agricultural field of the victim on 16.8.2024 at about 6.00 pm and committed gang-rape with her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS: 5. The applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence. 6. The FIR is delayed by about four months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Even the application u/s 175(4) B.N.S.S. was moved after the delay of about two months, as it was moved on 23.10.2024. It is true that the compliance of Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been made on 17.8.2024 itself. Even the provision has been wrongly transcribed for institution of the FIR, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The allegations do not stand corroborated by any medical evidence. 8. The applicants are languishing in jail since 5.4.2025, having no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 9. The bail application has been opposed, but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicants and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicants has not been disputed. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicants- Sandeep Kumar and Arvind 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law. 12. 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 applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants 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\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad