HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8352 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Learned AGA has informed that the notice to the complainant is served. However, none appears on behalf of the complainant. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years was having conversation on phone with the applicant for the last one year. It is alleged that on 26.2.2024, the applicant along with the co-accused persons has enticed the victim away. While going away, she has taken golden ear ring and golden ring with her. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. The victim while giving her statement under Section 180 BNSS has stated that she is 18 years old. She on her own accord went from home to Lucknow and in Lucknow at Akbarpur temple, she got married to the applicant. Thereafter, she along with the applicant went to Mumbai by train. No allegation at all has been levelled by the victim against the present applicant. Further, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, again there is no allegation of rape against the present applicant. It is submitted that the victim is a consenting party and she is major. It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases in the bail application. He is languishing in jail since 24.4.2025. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abhishek Yadav @ Kaka @ Ashwat Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that as per school leaving certificate, the victim was minor at the time of incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in re: P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525 and submitted that the school leaving certificate cannot be regarded as an appropriate document to ascertain the age of the victim. The relevant paragraph thereof is being reproduced herein below:- "19. It is clear from the above narrative that none of the documents produced during the trial answered the description of “the date of birth certificate from the school” or “the matriculation or equivalent certificate” from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that the victim’s age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General Hospital at Vellore, produced the X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a certificate was issued stating “that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years”. In the cross-examination, she admitted that M’s age could be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that “when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor”. This finding is, in this court’s considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94 (2) (ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim’s bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 18-20 years; in cross- examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, BAIL No. 8352 of 2025 2 this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-9. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS so also the fact that the prosecution has not conducted the ossification test of the victim; the victim has refused to undergo medico legal examination; the applicant has duly explained the criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 24.4.2025 as well as the provision of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the judgement of the Apex Court in re: P. Yuvaprakash (supra) 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. Let the applicant- Abhishek Yadav @ Kaka @ Ashwat Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 42 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1) of B.N.S. & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Dostpur, District- Sultanpur, 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 BAIL No. 8352 of 2025 3 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 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S. September 4, 2025 Shravan BAIL No. 8352 of 2025 4 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench