Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27443 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45810 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dileep Singh Yadav,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Saurabh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashwani Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 298 of 2024, under Sections 452, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the victim on 30.06.2024 at about 12 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 5 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major, although as per High School Certificate, her date of birth is stated to be 05.04.2009, as such her age has come up to be 15 years, 2 months and 25 days. It is next stated that the allegations of rape have been made in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and that too after legal consultation. There is no medical corroboration of the said 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. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, has opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Let the applicant- Anil Kumar, 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. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad