HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18567 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2025, under Sections 137(2) , 87 BNS, Police Station-Devrahat, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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 a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant to Delhi and thereby to Himachal Pradesh and stayed there for 15-16 days. She had also stated that she had not been sexually assaulted. It has also been mentioned in her statement that applicant promised to marry her and she also stated that her parents used to beat her up, as such, she has left her house. Victim by her looks seems to be major and as per School Certificate, her age has come out to be 17 years 11 months and 15 days. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akansha Verma, Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajeet .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 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. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the said statement of victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS 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, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant- Ajeet, 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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. September 11, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 18567 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad