Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33592 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42208 of 2024 Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Singh Yadav,Vaibhav Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. On telephonic conversation with the Investigating Officer, learned AGA has informed that the informant is out of station and the I.O. had telephonically informed him about the instant case on 15.11.2024, as such, service of notice is deemed sufficient. 3. Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2022, under Sections 376(3), 328, 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 5j(ii), (5n)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Sikandra, District - Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. 5. 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 six months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations levelled against the applicant are per se false. The DNA report, which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 11.11.2024, indicates that the applicant is not the biological father of the child. 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.09.2022, as such, his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as he is incarcerated for more than two years. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in trial as well. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the reason of delay in institution of FIR is but obvious from the fact that the victim was found pregnant at an advanced stage at that time. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. This Court had also fetched the report with regard to status of trial from learned Trial Judge and as per the said report dated 25.02.2025, four witnesses have already been examined, as such, only the formal witnesses i.e. the doctor and the I.O. are to be examined. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence anymore as already witnesses of fact have been examined. 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- Ravi Shankar, 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./ 351BNSS 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:- 7.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad