Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47308 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7468 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Praveen Kumar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2025 under Section 64(1) BNS and 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sharda Nagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the daughter of the informant used to remain alone at home during the informant’s absence. The accused, taking advantage of this situation, enticed the daughter of the informant and established physical relations with her, as a result of which she has become three months pregnant. It is also alleged that physical relationship was made by the victim on the promise made by the applicant that he will marry her. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has admitted to having a relationship with the applicant. The allegation of establishing physical relations on the pretext of marriage has been made. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the victim is a major. Learned counsel submits that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding. The applicant is ready to marry the victim. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.06.2025. It is further submitted that according to the FIR the victim is 19 years of age whereas in the radiological examination her age has been assessed to be between 15 to 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. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. Learned A.G.A. submits that the victim is a minor and is carrying a three month's fetus in her womb. The radiological age of the victim has been determined to be between 15 to 17 years. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that he has no objection to the applicant being enlarged on bail, provided that the applicant marries the victim. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the submissions advanced, the statement of the victim under Section 180 BNSS, the admitted relationship between the parties, and the undertaking given by the applicant in paragraph 18 of the bail application that all the family members of the prosecutrix and the applicant are ready for the marriage of the prosecutrix with the applicant; as also considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since 04.06.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the 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 Anil Kumar 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