Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13727 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43116 of 2024 Applicant :- Sandeep Chaube @ Prince Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Sharma,Prateek Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 21.11.2024. 3. Heard Sri Prateek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.235 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Sehjanwan, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant against unknown person regarding abscondance of his daughter since 17.4.2024 at 04:00 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR itself is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet-will and had married him. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as per the school certificate the date of birth of the victim is 5.7.2006, as such, her age comes out to be 17 years, 09 months and 12 days, which is marginally less than 18 years, although, by her physical appearance she seems to be major. 8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.5.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. 11. 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. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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. 13. Let the applicant- Sandeep Chaube @ Prince, 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. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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 :- 27.1.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad