HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26182 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Reema Pandey and Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, learned counsels for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 194 of 2024, under Sections 74, 77, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Jansa, District - Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The applicant was enlarged on bail by the trial court itself but subsequently on the basis of applicant having called from his mobile no. 9548215365 to the mobile no. 8630338384 of the victim and the availability of the said transcription, his bail was rejected by the court concerned vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Bail Cancellation Application No. 4920 of 2024. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is a constable and was madly love with the victim and used to call her. There was no call detail which suggests that the applicant had threatened the victim. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Pandey, Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Srivastava, Kiran Yadav, Saurabh Raj Srivastava Shubham Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is a constable and has misused his clout and was regularly tormenting and teasing the victim and made her life hell by continuously called her, as such, he is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also taking into consideration the circumstances of the case which have been left over for the sake of prolixity, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant- Shubham Kumar, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. iv) The applicant shall not call the victim or her mother or any other of her family members whatsoever during the pendency of the trial. 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 19, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 26182 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad