Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39903 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28209 of 2024 Applicant :- Brijkishor @ Deepu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Pandey,Pawankumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 386 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(n), 328, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Powayan, District - Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 08 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim seems to be a consenting party as she had gone with the applicant to Lucknow and wrongly told her parents that she was going to Bareilly. Even the victim had remained with the applicant in a room there. It is argued that she has not raised any alarm whatsoever during to and fro journey from lucknow to her hometown. The victim is major aged about 21 years. It is also stated that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. 6. 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Brijkishor @ Deepu, 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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:- 19.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad