HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8131 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. Notice to complainant has been served as per instructions of learned A.G.A. 2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 4.4.2019 at about 6.00p.m., minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years while she had gone to ease out in the orchard, the named accused persons have molested her. Upon the alarm being raised, they ran away while hurling abuses. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim has not taken the name of the applicant in her statement under section 161 CrPC. However, in her statement under section 164 CrPC, for the first time, the names of the applicant and the co-accused have been taken by her. Statement of the victim has been recorded by the court below where she has supported the prosecution case. There is no chance of tampering the evidence. It is submitted that earlier, first information report was registered under sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., 7/8 POCSO Act, however, considering the statement of victim under section 164 CrPC, court below has framed charges under sections 376DA, 504, 506 I.P.C., 5G, 6 of POCSO Act. It is submitted that except the statement of the victim, there is no other Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raju @ Karan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) corroborative material to support the prosecution case. It is submitted that the FSL report which alleges blood on the clothes of the victim is not relevant as the victim was menstruating at the relevant time in view of the statement given by Dr.Parul Saxena, P.W.3 which is on record. The radiological age of the victim is assessed as 15-17 years as per ossification test. No case under section 376 DA I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. The co-accused Sandeep Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 7.2.2025 passed in Bail No.1117 of 2025. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 21.9.2024. 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. 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 applicant has no criminal history, the co-accused, named above, has been granted bail, statement of the victim has been recorded before the trial court and there appears to be no chance of tampering the evidence, 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 Raju alias Karan, involved in Case Crime No.65 of 2019 under sections 376DA, 504, 506 I.P.C., 5(g)/6 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Manikpur, 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. 8131 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 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. August 28, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 8131 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench