Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75506 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43992 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,G.A.,Rashmi Upadhyay Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2024, U/S 64(2)k B.N.S. and 5K/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sonaha, District Basti, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 20.7.2024 at about 2.30 pm when the informant had gone out to brick-kiln. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that FIR is delayed by about 10 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that it is mentioned in the FIR itself that the victim was 18 years old but as per school entry certificate, her date of birth is 30.7.2007, as such, her age is 16 years, 11 months and 20 days, which is slightly less than the age of majority. The said document is fake. 7. It is further stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, as no injury has been sustained by the victim. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.7.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but have not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR, coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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- Vinay Kumar involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 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 :- 9.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad