Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54065 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26689 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kabeer Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Sri Kabeer Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The allegation against the applicant of making attempt on the life of the injured. There is also allegation of abduction of minor girl and commission of offence of outraging her modesty against co-accused, Hari Om Yadav. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Co-accused, Hari Om Yadav, who was earlier implicated has been exonerated by the police and new co-accused, Raj, has been implicated after statement of the injured recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that in the statement of the victim she has admitted knowing the applicant very well and having affair with him also. It is not clear why injury was caused on the abdomen of the injured by the applicant. The injuries were not found to be grievous in nature. Applicant is in jail since 09.03.2024. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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. Let the applicant, Rahul Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.120 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 354(A), 307 I.P.C and Sections 7, 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and Section 3 and 25 of Arms Act 1959, Police Station Ghanghata, District- Sant Kabir Nagar 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 the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 SS Digitally signed by :- SURENDER SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad