Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47459 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7444 of 2025 Applicant :- Badal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. As per the instructions of the learned A.G.A., the complainant has been served with notice. However, none appears on behalf of the complainant. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0056 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Gadaganj, District Raebareli. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim, on her own accord and free will, went with the applicant and has not made any allegation in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS against the applicant. She has clearly denied that any force was applied upon her, in her statement under Section 183 BNSS. The victim is illiterate, and there is a lack of corroborative evidence. It is further submitted that the element of enticement is absent and that the victim is a major. He further submits that the radiological age of the victim has been found to be 17 years. It is submitted that, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, (1982) 2 SCC 538, a margin of two years on either side is permissible in determining age based on radiological examination. 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 facts that the applicant has no criminal history, age of the victim, lack of corroborative material in the prosecution case, charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail since 13.5.2025 and 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 Badal 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 :- 13.8.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench