Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89918 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18215 of 2025 Applicant :- Moyeen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hriday Raj Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.33 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 352, 351(2), 64(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, 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. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is evident from the fact that she has travelled with the applicant to several places and has not raised any alarm whatsoever. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per class-IXth school certificate, she is stated to be 16 years old, but the said document has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law being hit by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.02.2025 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have 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 for 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 the FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident coupled with the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, 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- Moyeen, 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 pressurise/intimidate with 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 :- 27.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad