HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7855 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the informant was enticed away by the accused on the false pretext of marriage and was sexually assaulted for the previous three years. During this period, the victim became pregnant. It is claimed that she was compelled to terminate the pregnancy at a medical facility in Gonda on 24.08.2024 and threat was extended by the applicant on the basis of the obscene video of the victim. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim's testimonies recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS are inconsistent. It is also contended that the FIR was lodged after a delay of seven months. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application, submitting that the incident occurred nearly two years prior to the lodging of the FIR, when the victim was 13 years old as per the school records, whereas Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sheo Prakash Singh, Hema Singh, Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Neeraj Pandey Mohit Yadav @ Raj Babu Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) her present age as per the ossification test is 17 years. It is further contended that the statement of the victim has already been recorded before the trial court and it is intact. However, upon a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the complainant could not reply as to in which nursing home, the victim was aborted. He also failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the allegation of abortion or the existence of the alleged obscene video said to have been made by the applicant. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, he too could not point out from the case diary any material indicating that the abortion had actually taken place or any obscene video was recovered during investigation. 6. Perused the record. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the FIR was lodged after a delay of seven months. There is no corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case except for the statements of the victim, which do not inspire confidence. The radiological age of the victim has been assessed as 17 years. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Since the charge sheet has already been filed, there appears to be no possibility of tampering with the evidence. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, and considering that the applicant is in custody since 01.04.2025, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant Mohit Yadav @ Raj Babu Yadav involved in Case Crime No-54/2025, Under Section- 64(2)(m),65(1) of B.N.S and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station – Maheshganj, District- Pratapgarh, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. BAIL No. 7855 of 2025 2 (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 in accordance with law. (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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 8. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. August 28, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 7855 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench