Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27196 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44790 of 2024 Applicant :- Arvind Alias Panjabi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Parvesh Kumar Pandey,Shre Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Shyam Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Sri Parvesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.330 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years on 10.10.2024 at about 8:00 p.m. by taking her into an orchard. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have attempted to cause the murder of the informant on 15.10.2024. 5. 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 ten days from the date of incident of rape and it is delayed by about five days from the date of attempting to commit the murder of the informant and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim by her looks seems to be major and as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be between 16-17 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 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 23.10.2024 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court 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 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Arvind Alias Panjabi, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 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 :- 27.2.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad