Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48785 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3505 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Alias Harendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Ranjan Pandey,Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 28.1.2025. 3. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.221 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376(3) I.P.C. and 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Ecotech-3, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the informant had instituted the FIR on 10.6.2024 at 07:09 p.m. stating that his daughter was missing since 8.6.2024 at 08:00 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 FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that victim has stated that she was taken as captive by the applicant on 8.6.2024 and she escaped from the captivity next day, which means on 9.6.2024, but the victim has been recovered in the evening on 10.6.2024 as per official papers and the said fact finds mention in GD also on 10.6.2024, as such, complete prosecution story stands falsified. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim has given contradictory statements regarding her recovery in the statement U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and also before the doctor conducting her medical examination. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, although one abrasion has been observed on her lip, but it cannot be assigned to the applicant. The victim is 15 years old as per the ossification test report. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.6.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Shivam Alias Harendra, 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. 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. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad