Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80551 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4126 of 2025 Applicant :- Sachin Harijan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hridai Narayan Sharma,Keshav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajnish Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 9.2.2025. 3. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Keshav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. None is present on behalf of the informant. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Singramau, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other co- accused persons is stated to have abducted and enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 25.11.2024 between 8.00 am to 2.00 pm. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. It is further stated that the victim, by her looks, seems to be major, although as per High School certificate, her date of birth is 10.8.2008, as such, her age comes out to be 16 years, 3 months and 15 days only. 8. It is further stated that the victim is the consenting party, as she had gone with the applicant all the way to Surat, Gujarat and remained there for about one month. Although she has stated that the applicant had raped her but the said statement has been garnered after legal consultation. 9. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.1.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 11. In the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR, the fact that the victim is the consenting party, there being no medical corroboration of the incident, and considering the judgements passed in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Brij Mohan Singh (supra), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Sachin Harijan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad