Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12915 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2489 of 2025 Applicant :- Sajid Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Patel,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 07.01.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 501 of 2024, under Sections 87, 65(1), 137(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act., Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant with an intention to convert her to Islam and marry her on 18.10.2024 at about 12 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is further stated that the FIR is delayed by about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The informant had earlier on also instituted an FIR against the applicant as Case Crime No.90 of 2024 and he has been enlarged on bail in the said case by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2024. Learned counsel has next argued that the victim is a major. As per birth certificate also, she was 19 years old as her date of birth is 01.04.2005. The instant case is just misuse of process of law. There is no criminal history assigned to the applicant except the aforesaid case. 7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 8. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 11. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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 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- Sajid Ali, 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 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 :- 24.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad