HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20258 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mangleshwar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Renu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 10.06.2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.03 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forcibly committed unnatural offence with the victim on 11.12.2024 at about 2:00 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations are per se false. The FIR is delayed by about twenty one days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident either. It is true that the victim was minor aged about 13 years, but the delay itself speaks volume of false implication. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Renu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohammad Hasan Alias Shalu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) is languishing in jail since 21.04.2025 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 State Law Officer 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 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 FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, 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. 11. Let the applicant- Mohammad Hasan Alias Shalu, 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. September 19, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 20258 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad