HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31579 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 444 of 2025, under Sections 74, 351(3) B.N.S. and 9M/10 POCSO Act, Police Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the daughter of the informant on 12.7.2025. 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. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that no time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.8.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Chandra Dwivedi, Vivek Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhijeet Ghosh, Ashish Kumar, G.A. Ranjeet Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the application was given by the informant on 12.7.2025 itself, the date of incident, but the same was registered on 14.7.2025, as such, the delay cannot be attributed to the informant. 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 of two days in institution of FIR and the fact that no time of offence is mentioned in it, 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- Ranjeet Kumar, 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 23, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 31579 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad