Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65634 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44812 of 2024 Applicant :- Govind @ Govinda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nirbhay Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 12.11.2024. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0641 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)M, 127(3), 115(2), 87 B.N.S. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have abducted the victim on 24.08.2024 at about 5:00 a.m. alongwith 3-4 unknown persons. When the matter was reported the family members of the applicant, they are stated to have assaulted the informant. 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 is delayed by about 18 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is stated to have stayed with the applicant at Chandigarh for 4 days and has not raised any alarm whatsoever rather she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. that she had reached all the way from Chandigarh to Bareilly and had rushed to the Police Station Faridpur and had subsequently controverted the said allegations also by stating that she called her parents and then she had gone to the police station. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that as per class-IXth school certificate, the victim is stated to be 16 years, 6 months and 3 days old as her date of birth is 21.02.2008. The said document has no evidentiary value being hit by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.09.2024 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. 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 the victim has not raised any alarm whatsoever to and fro Chandigarh and Bareilly coupled with the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, also taking into consideration the judgment of Supreme Court passed in P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525 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- Govind @ Govinda, 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 :- 28.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad