HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8210 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Notice to the complainant has been served as per the instructions of learned A.G.A, however no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0186 of 2025 under section 87, 137(2), 64(1) of BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur. In the prosecution case it is alleged that while the informant and his wife were asleep during the night the informant’s daughter eloped with the applicant. While going away she has taken Rs. 20,000/- in cash. It is further alleged that the co-accused also played a role in enticing the minor daughter of the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the victim has not named the applicant. It is stated that she had left her home after being annoyed with her father. In her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS, improvements have been made by the victim and, for the first time, allegations of enticement and rape have been levelled against the present applicant. It is further submitted that there is no corroborative medical report to support the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devendra Pratap, Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Home Deptt. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) prosecution case and the ossification test of the victim has not been conducted. The applicant is in jail since 27.06.2025 and has no criminal antecedents. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submits that as per the school records the date of birth of the victim is 12.09.2008. On the date of the incident, she was aged about 16 years and 9 months and thus a minor. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been determined on the basis of the certificate issued regarding date of birth by the primary school where the victim had studied. It is further submitted that the birth certificate relied upon is not in conformity with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and no radiological examination of the victim has been conducted by the Medical Board. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the contradictory statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the lack of corroborative evidence, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, and that he is in jail since 27.06.2025, coupled with the circumstance that even as per the disputed educational certificate the victim was aged about 16 years and 9 months and thus might have attained the age of discretion 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Raj Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime 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 BAIL No. 8210 of 2025 2 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). September 1, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8210 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench