Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39392 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6365 of 2025 Applicant :- Hemraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. As per the statement of the learned A.G.A., notice has been served on the complainant.The accused-applicant seeks bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0027 of 2025 under Section 87 & 137(2) of BNS, under Section 16/17 POCSO Act, police Station Jamo, District Amethi. In the prosecution case it is alleged that minor daughter of the informant has been enticed away by the applicant on 7.2.2025 in the night at about 10.00 p.m. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. The victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The radiological age of the victim has been assessed to be 17 years. It is further submitted that, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, (1982) 2 SCC 538, there is a margin of error of two years on either side in determining age through radiological examination, and in such circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, entitling the applicant to the higher side of the age margin. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the varied statement of the victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, lack of corroborative medical evidence, radiological age of the victim has been found to be 17 years, the applicant is in jail since 9.2.2025; charge-sheet has been filed in the matter; without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Hemraj be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (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 tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS)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 IPC (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench