Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42487 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44963 of 2024 Applicant :- Angad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Munna Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 13.12.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 4. In compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 28.02.2025, ossification test report of the victim is on record and as per the said report, age of the victim has come up to be 16 years. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 404 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 351(3) BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 10.09.2024 at about 2:30 a.m. when the victim had gone out of the house to scare away dogs. On raising of alarm by the victim, villagers are stated to have caught hold of the applicant and called the police but the applicant somehow released himself from the clutches of the said persons and ran away from the place of occurrence. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 9 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major, although as per ossification test report also, her age has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident. The victim seems to be a consenting party as far as the applicant is concerned as is but evident from the circumstances as she had left her house in the odd hours at 2:30 a.m. on 10.09.2024. 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. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 11. As per ossification test report, the age of the victim is 16 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side in the light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot be predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Let the applicant- Angad, 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. 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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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 :- 24.3.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad