Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33481 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2840 of 2025 Applicant :- Sachin Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Purushottam Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Shankar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Purushottam Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 415 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station - Nigohi, District - Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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 as alleged in the FIR. It is also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that as per ossification test report of the victim, her age is stated to be 16 years. The applicant himself is a youth of 22 years old. It is a matter of consensual relationship between the two adolescents. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 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 15.08.2024 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. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per the school certificate of the victim, her age is stated to be 15 years, as such, she is minor. The consent of minor, if any, has no significance in the eyes of law. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS 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. 10. Let the applicant- Sachin Singh, 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 351BNSS 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:- 7.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad