Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50986 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22783 of 2024 Applicant :- Rakesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Parijat Kumar Tiwari,Venu Gopal Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. List has been revised. 3. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376AB, 376(2)(n), 323, 344 I.P.C. and Section 5(L)(M)/6 POCSO Act Police Station Qilla, District Bareilly during the pendency of trial. 5. As per the prosecution story, the victim was going to the market along with her mother on 03.06.2023 at about 12:30 PM. After sometime when informant noticed that her daughter was not following her, she instituted F.I.R. the same evening at 05:35 PM. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name has come up later on at the time of recording of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has alleged that the applicant along with three other co-accused persons has gang-raped her. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the father of the victim who happens to be the husband of the informant has categorically stated that instant F.I.R. was wrongly instituted and is based on false facts. No such offence has been committed with his daughter. The victim is 16 years old as per her own statement. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.08.2023 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. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the statement of victim has been recorded as P.W.1 in Court and she has deposed against the applicant. 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that even an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant and the said application has been rejected. The instant case is the misuse of process of law. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The applicant has to prepare for his defence also. 10. The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. 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. 12. 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 fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.08.2023 and only one witness has been examined to date, 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. 13. Let the applicant- Rakesh, 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. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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 :- 8.4.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad