Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50382 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47021 of 2024 Applicant :- Suny Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avaneesh Kumar Upadhyay,Virat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 20.12.2024. 3. Heard Sri Virat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.239 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S., 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station- Linepar, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years on 24.8.2024 at about 08:00 a.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party and her consent can be drawn from the fact that she had taken Rs.40,000/- cash and certain ornaments with her. The victim has categorically stated in her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet-will and had married him. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim has not allayed any allegations of rape. She by her looks seems to be major, although as per the ossification test report her age 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 antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.9.2024 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 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- Suny, 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. 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 :- 8.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad