Satyam @ Sooraj Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Heard Sri Saddam Husain, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.17 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 331(4), 115(2), 351(3), 324(4) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Paniyara, District- Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim in the night of 11.1.2025 at about 01:00 a.m.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

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.

Let the applicant- Satyam @ Sooraj Yadav, 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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

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 :- 17.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad