Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60801 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47356 of 2024 Applicant :- Naim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav,Vandana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. The certified copy of the FIR is not legible. 3. The District Judge, Deoria is directed to look into the matter so that the certified copies are issued, which are legible. 4. The said act of the copying department of the District Deoria stand deprecated. 5. Heard Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 6. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.348 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 351(3), 3(5), 70(2) of B.N.S. and Section 5(G)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Salempur, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 7. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the applicant alongwith Saddam is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 12.08.2024. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The statement of manager of the hotel, where the victim and the co-accused person Saddam stayed, indicates that the applicant had come with the co-accused person, but had gone back, which indicates that the applicant had not subjected the victim to any kind of corporeal relationship. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that it was the co-accused person Saddam and the victim who had stayed in the hotel for about 3-4 hours. It is true that the victim has alleged the allegations of rape against the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., but the said statement has been recorded after legal consultation and delay. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that as per ossification test report, the age of the victim has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 11. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Let the applicant- Naim, 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. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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. 18. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned District Judge for intimation and necessary compliance. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad