HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8756 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. As per the instructions of learned A.G.A., notice to the complainant has been served, 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.151 of 2025 under Section 65(1) BNS, Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hariyavan, District Hardoi. In the prosecution case it is alleged that on the night of 15th July 2025, the informant and her family were sleeping outside their house. She and her 10- year-old son were lying on one cot, while her daughters were asleep on another. Around 1 o’clock in the night, the applicant came, removed the clothes of the victim and raped her. When she tried to raise alarm, he gagged her mouth. The informant, who was lying nearby, tried to catch hold of him, but he managed to escape and ran away. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecution case is highly improbable, as the alleged offence of rape could not have been committed when two persons were sleeping on another cot beside the victim. The victim, while giving her statement under Section 183 BNSS, has also changed the time of the incident. Further, as per the radiological Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Mukesh Kumar, Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinop @ Vinod .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) examination, the victim was found to be about 15–16 years of age. It is further submitted that in another radiological report, the age of the victim has been found to be 17 years. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, (1982) 2 SCC 538, wherein it has been held that a margin of two years on either side is permissible in determining age based on radiological examination. It is contended that there is a lack of corroborative medical evidence, and no sign of rape were found during the medico legal examination of the victim. The case is of false implication. The charge sheet has already been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in jail since 17.7.2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the fact that there is a lack of corroborative medical evidence, no sign of rape has been found during the medical legal examination of the victim, the charge sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and he is in jail since 17.7.2025 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 Vinop @ Vinod 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. BAIL No. 8756 of 2025 2 (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 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 12, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8756 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench