HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8091 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Gyanendra Mishra, learned Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. 2. In the prosecution case, it has been alleged that the informant resides with her minor children aged about 12 and 14 years. On 06.05.2025, while the informant had gone with her husband and son to Rampur Bawli to visit her ailing father, the victim remained alone at home. Taking advantage of her being alone, it is alleged that the applicant committed rape upon her. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS were recorded in violation of Section 26(1) of the POCSO Act, as they were taken in the absence of her parents. It is further pointed out that as per the radiological examination, the victim’s age was assessed between 16–17 years. The injury found on the victim’s right leg cannot be connected with the incident since the medical examination was conducted ten days thereafter. It is also contended that as the victim has already been examined before the trial court, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. 4. 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Singh, Rajnish Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nikhil Singh Alias Akshat Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that at the relevant time of the incident, the victim was 11 years and 9 months old, as per the scholar register of the school, and the alleged offence being heinous, applicant is not entitled to be enlarge on bail. 7. Rebutting this submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846, particularly paragraph 13 thereof. He submits that under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court is required to determine age on the basis of three documents only, namely: (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, (ii) the matriculation or equivalent certificate, or (iii) the birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat. It is argued that the scholar register relied upon by the complainant is not one of these prescribed documents. 8. It is further submitted that in the absence of such documents, the ossification test report shall prevail for determination of age. 9. On due consideration to the facts that the victim has already been examined, there is absence of corroborative opinion in the medico-legal report, there was a delay of six days in lodging the FIR, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash (supra), coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 16.05.2021, I am of the view that it is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant Nikhil Singh Alias Akshat Singh involved in Case Crime No. 0172/2025 U/S 65(1), 115(2),352,351(3), BNS, 2023 and Section 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station: Lalganj, 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. BAIL No. 8091 of 2025 2 (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 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). 12. 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. September 1, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 8091 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench