HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29332 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vishwanath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.25 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Jataha Bazar, District- Kushinagar, 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. The FIR itself is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. She has categorically denied being subjected to any kind of sexual assault by the applicant. The victim is major and even the applicant has not been implicated under the POCSO Act. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Prakash Mishra, Vishwanath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Madan Chauhan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the statement of victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, 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- Madan Chauhan, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall 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. September 19, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 29332 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad