Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24268 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3269 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 479 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station AIIMS, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against unknown person regarding missing sister of the informant since 24.09.2024 at 2 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is next stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has come up later on whereby he is stated to have forcibly taken the victim to his house and raped her. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident as the victim had refused her medical examination. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major, although as per school certificate of class-Vth, she was marginally less than 16 years. The said document is not admissible in the light of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act. 7. 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. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Let the applicant- Vishal Prajapati, 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. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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 :- 19.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad