HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37306 of 2024 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. The applicant is in jail since 06.12.2023. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2023 at Police Station-Kharkhauda, District-Meerut under Sections 366, 368, 376(3), 506, 120-B I.P.C., Section 3/4(2) and 16/17 POCSO Act. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court on 19.05.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Anand Kumar Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by J.B. Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Kunwar Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant the victim resided in the same neighbourhood and grew intimate over the years. The couple had a consensual relationship. 2.The victim eloped with the applicant and the couple got married of their free will. The marriage was also duly registered. 3. The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Mishra, Praveen Yadav, Sandeep Singh, Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : J.B. Singh, G.A., Manisha Chaturvedi Shavej .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the aforesaid relationship. 4. The victim was incorrectly depicted as a minor of 15 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his indefinite imprisonment. 5. There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents. The victim is infact a major. 6. The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim records that the victim is 21 years of age. 7. The victim has made false and aggravated allegations against the applicant in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents to save the failing prosecution case. 8. The victim stayed with the applicant at Ghaziabad and Delhi for 18 days. She was present at public places. The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. She did not raise an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party. 9. Major inconsistencies in the F.I.R. statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. 10. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution. 11. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial. 12. The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence at any stage. 13. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the BAIL No. 37306 of 2024 2 trial proceedings in any manner. 14. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial. 15. The victim has already been examined. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the aforesaid witness. 16. The prosecution proposes to examine 21 prosecution witnesses to bring home the charges. However, till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined. 17. Prosecution is deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. 18. Inordinate delay in concluding trial will lead to an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence. 19. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated. 20. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. 21. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In wake of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Shavej be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence BAIL No. 37306 of 2024 3 any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. February 25, 2026 Vandit BAIL No. 37306 of 2024 4 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad