Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 196 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Sonkar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit dated 20.08.2025 filed on behalf of State is taken on record. Heard, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. None appeared for the complainant although notices have been served. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Sandeep Sonkar, seeking bail in Case Crime No. 262 of 2024, U/s 376,506, 323, 342 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Jamo, District- Amethi. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was lodged after a delay of five years. As per the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is a six-year delay in lodging the FIR. On the date of the FIR as well as on the date of the alleged incident, as per the school record, the victim was a major. He submits that the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. do not inspire confidence. There is a lack of corroborative material to support the prosecution case. Both the complainant and the victim have been examined before the concerned court. The complainant was declared hostile during cross-examination. The victim, examined as PW-2, has been declared hostile in her examination-in-chief. There is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and the applicant has no previous criminal history. He has been in jail since 17.10.2024. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Perused the record. On due consideration of the delay in lodging the FIR, the fact that both the complainant and the victim have been examined and declared hostile, and that the applicant has no criminal history, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Sandeep Sonkar, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 262 of 2024, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned, with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or to tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and, in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and they fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Haseen U. Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench