Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123127 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39535 of 2024 Applicant :- Tasleem Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Kumar Mishra,Vipin Gangwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Dwivedi,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Ms. Pratima Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.74 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 120B, 376(2)N I.P.C. and 5(L)/6, 5(J)2 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant regarding his missing daughter since 05.12.2023. 5. 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 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come later on in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that the applicant concealed the fact that he was already married and had four children from his earlier marriage. The said allegations are false. The victim was very much aware of the earlier marriage of the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per Class-IV certificate, her date of birth is 05.06.2007, as such, she comes out to be sixteen years and six months old at the time of offence, but the said document has no evidentiary value being hit by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim. 10. 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 in institution of FIR and the judgment of Supreme Court passed in P. Yuvaprakash (Supra), 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. 11. Let the applicant- Tasleem, 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 pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 25.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad