Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27047 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43343 of 2024 Applicant :- Ankul Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. 3 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Parmeshwar Yadav,Uttam Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uttam Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in P.S.T. No.2215 of 2024 arising out of Crime No.149 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 70(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Pachkhora, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against unknown person regarding the missing niece of the informant since 19.7.2024 at about 3:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she was subjected to rape by the co- accused person Anil for about two years and subsequently the applicant had also raped her around the date of recovery. The victim has kept silent for a period of more than two years and has not whispered a single word against any person whatsoever. Learned counsel has further stated that it is a clear-cut case of false implication. 6. 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 history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was barely 14 years, 6 months and 18 days old at the time of incident, as such, her consent cannot be drawn whatsoever. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that as per ossification test report, the age of the victim has come out to be 17 years and she has not whispered a single word against the applicant for about two years regarding her sexual molestation, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Ankul Kumar 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 27.2.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad