HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8524 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.126 of 2025 under Seciton 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS, Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is a major and a consenting party, which is evident from her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, wherein she has denied the prosecution story. In the radiological examination, the victim has been found to be 17 years of age. As per the High School record, she is 17 years, 2 months, and 16 days old. It is submitted that, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, (1982) 2 SCC 538, a margin of two years on either side is permissible in determining age based on radiological examination. There is no corroborative material in the medico-legal examination of the victim, and no abnormality has been detected. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Charge-sheet has already been filed, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pappu @ Pappu Kashyap .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) and the applicant is in jail since 17.06.2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. On due consideration to the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS where she has not supported the prosecution case and the facts that as per the radiological examination the victim appears to be major; the circumstances prima facie showing that she was a consenting party; the applicant having no previous criminal history is in jail since 17.06.2025; charge-sheet in this case has been filed 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 Pappu alias Pappu Kashyap be released on bail in aforesaid first information report 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 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. BAIL No. 8524 of 2025 2 (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 9, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8524 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench