Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14959 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 399 of 2025 Appellant :- Sameer Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anamika Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed by learned AGA today is taken on record. 2. It is evident from the record that notice is already served upon the private respondent but no one has put appearance on his behalf, therefore, the appeal is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State-respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record. 4. The present appeal has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2853/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 29/2024 under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Hathigawan, District- Pratapgarh. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the prosecution case, the victim was enticed away by the appellant and his associates. He further submits that during the course of investigation, statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that she was scolded and beaten by her father, as a result of which, on the date of incident, she left her house in the midnight at 2 PM. Thereafter she made a phone call to the appellant and forced him to come at her desired place and thereafter she insisted the appellant to come with her and they went to Puna. He next submits that nothing wrong was done by the appellant and thereafter her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which again she reiterated that she was not enticed away by the appellant. He also submits that in the ossification test, her age was found 18 years but all these aspects were not considered by the court below at the time of deciding bail application of the appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of appellant but he does not dispute the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she was not enticed away by the appellant and as per the radiological test her age was found 18 years. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., going through the contents of impugned order as well as FIR, statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C and radiological test in which her age was found 18 years, this Court is of the view that learned trial court is failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2853/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 29/2024 under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Hathigawan, District- Pratapgarh is hereby set aside. 9. Let the appellant- Sameer involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:- (1) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 AKK Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench