Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24032 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2690 of 2025 Applicant :- Suryakant Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Keshav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Rai Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Hari Keshav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailendra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 41 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 5j(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Rohania, District Varanasi, 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. The instant case is of consensual relationship of the victim with the applicant. The informant has been examined as PW-1 during trial and she has completely resiled from her earlier statement and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring her hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case as the family members of both the parties have agreed to marry of the duo i.e. victim with the applicant. 5. It is true that as per the document, age of the victim is 14 years, 3 months and 21 days but by her physical appearance, she seems to be major. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.04.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant has not opposed the aforesaid fact and stated that the family members of both the parties have agreed to marry of the duo. 7. 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. 8. Let the applicant- Suryakant Pal, 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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 :- 19.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad