Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73491 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34262 of 2024 Applicant :- Rupendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Daya Shanker Yadav,G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 12.08.2024 as not pressed. 3. Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, holding brief of Sri Dinesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. None is present on behalf of the informant. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 372, 323, 120B IPC, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, 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. It is next stated that the victim 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. The case of the applicant is at better footing qua co- accused Ram Babu. Learned counsel has further stated that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.5 of the rejoinder affidavit. 5. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.04.2024 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. 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. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution story, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Rupendra 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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 :- 7.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad