Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49280 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7545 of 2025 Applicant :- Dilip @ Dilip Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Avadhesh Mishra Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Avdhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant who has filed vakalatnama today in court which is taken on record, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was found missing from home on 20.1.2017 at about 6.30 morning. Local persons informed that she was seen in the company of Adarsh Mishra and present applicant Dilip. The prosecutrix was recovered on 28.1.2017. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Adarsh Mishra alias Gulu has been granted bail vide order dated 18.7.2017 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail No.5756 of 2017.The main role is of the co-accused. The investigating officer after conducting investigation has dropped the name of the applicant. Name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement of the victim before the court and he has been summoned under section 319 CrPC. It is further submitted that as per radiological examination, the age of the victim is assessed as 17 years. It is submitted that margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side as held by Supreme Court in Jaya Mala versus Home Secretary, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir and others (1982)2 SCC 538. The victim has sustained no injury on her person. Therefore, the allegation of gang rape is falsified. The victim while deposing in the court as P.W.2 in the cross examination has clearly stated that she does not know the applicant and still today, she does not know which again falsifies the entire prosecution case. There is not a single call from the mobile of the applicant. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of statement of eye- witness. There is a civil dispute pending between the applicant and the alleged eye witness which is on record. The applicant has explained criminal history of one case in para 41 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 28.6.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 4.Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the co-accused, named above, has been granted bail, charge sheet has been filed, during investigation, the applicant was not arrested, trial is going on, the applicant has been summoned under section 319 CrPC, the victim has already been examined, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 6.Let the applicant Dilip alias Dilip Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.53 of 2017 (S.T.No.46 of 2017) under sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Sidhauli, district Sitapur, 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. (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 I.P.C. (now 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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS). 7.The application is allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 22.8.2025/kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench