Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36064 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5406 of 2025 Applicant :- Dileep Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ashish Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the informant/ complainant is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed a certified copy of the affidavit filed by the complainant before the learned Trial Court, which is also taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 4. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 113 of 2025 under sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Mill Area, District - Raebareli. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the age of the victim was 19 years at the time of the incident. In this regard, an affidavit is also placed before the learned Trial Court by the complainant wherein in paragraph no. 2, the same has been specifically stated. He next submits that the statement of the victim demolishes the story of the prosecution as she was of 19 years of age at the time of the incident. He also added that the applicant has no previous criminal history, as is mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, and he is languishing in jail since 02.04.2025 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the age of the victim was 19 years of age at the time of the incident and an affidavit to this effect has been given by the informant before the learned Trial Court. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State, though, has opposed the aforesaid contentions on merits but he submits that if the age of the victim is 19 years and is yet to be determined by the learned Trial Court, he has no objection. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, particularly the affidavit regarding the age of the victim given by the informant before the learned Trial Court; the statement of the victim before the learned Trial Court including the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history, as is mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is in jail since 02.04.2025, prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence, coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. 9. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 10. Let the applicant- Dileep Yadav 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:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his 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) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (iv) In case, the applicant 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. 11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 23.6.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench