Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20585 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45953 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Muskan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Sri Vipin Chandra Pal, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned brief holder for the State and counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 3. The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0345 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 323, 120-B I.P.C., and Section-16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report was lodged by the victim. In the said first information report the applicant was not named. Subsequently, in the statement of the victim the name of the applicant and other accused persons were disclosed. As per the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim was taken to different places by the applicant and other accused. It is contended that it is highly improbable that the victim was taken to different places without any resistance or protest by her. As per the medical report of the victim she was aged 17 years. It is contended that the range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. In fact, the victim is a major. She was a consenting party. The applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 29.9.2024. In case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned brief holder has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that in the first information report the applicant was not named by the victim. Subsequently, the victim named the applicant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant does not have any criminal history. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than four months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant, Smt. Muskan involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad