Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77975 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3074 of 2025 Applicant :- Kurban Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Shashank Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Kumar Yadav,Chandramani Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record, which indicates the age of the victim to be between 16-17 years. 3. Heard Sri Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandramani Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0271 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S., 2023 and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Phephna, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as is evident from the fact that she has gone with the applicant all the way to Delhi and has not raised any alarm whatsoever. She by her looks seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be between 16-17 years and a leverage of two years may also be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The applicant himself is a youth just about the age of majority, although he has claimed his juvenility, but the Juvenile Justice Board has found him to be major. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor as per high-school certificate as her date of birth is 09.07.2008. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Kurban, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 13.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad