Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6655 of 2025 Applicant :- Suchit Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anamika Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. None appeared for the complainant. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Suchit Kumar Gupta, seeking bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2025, U/s 137 (2), 87, 65 (1) BNS and 5n/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Manikpur, District Pratapgarh. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution alleges that the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 15 years, was enticed away. He submits that the victim, in her statements under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, has not leveled any allegation against the applicant. The element of enticement is missing even in her statement before the court as PW-1. The ossification test found her age to be about 17 years. However, a plus-minus two years variation is possible in the determination of age by ossification test, and the applicant, being the accused, is entitled to the benefit of the higher side in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Jaya Mala v. Govt. of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538". The applicant has no criminal history. As per the statement of the victim, she was born in 2002, but before the court, she has stated her date of birth as 20.10.2010, which would make her about 15 years of age. It is submitted that since the victim has been examined, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Perused the record. On due consideration of the victim's statements during the investigation so also before the trial court, the fact that the victim has been examined, and that the applicant has no prior criminal history, along with the fact that he has been in jail since 13.02.2025, this Court finds no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Suchit Kumar Gupta, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 08 of 2025, 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