HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8739 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant, although, as per the instructions of learned AGA, notice to the complainant is served. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, on the pretext of marriage, has been sexually exploiting the prosecutrix for the past seven years. It is further alleged that the victim became pregnant on several occasions and the applicant got the pregnancies terminated by administering pills. The prosecution also alleges that the applicant is now demanding a four-wheeler, a ring, other jewellery, and Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash as a condition for marriage. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is presently 19 years of age. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, the applicant would have been only 12 years old at the time of the alleged incidents, which is highly improbable. It is further submitted that although the victim, in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, has reiterated the prosecution story with some improvements, there is no corroborative evidence to establish that she ever became pregnant or underwent abortion. For this reason, the Investigating Officer has rightly omitted Section 89 BNS while filing the charge sheet. 4. It has also been argued that it is not the case of the prosecution that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, Mohammad Affan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mahtab @ Lal Badshah .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) applicant, from the very beginning, had no intention of marrying the prosecutrix or he used deceitful means so as to attract the provisions of Section 69 BNS. On the contrary, it is a case of false implication, which is evident from the fact that prior to the lodging of the FIR, both the applicant and the prosecutrix had been challaned under Sections 170, 126, and 135 BNSS, and out of this grudge, the present FIR was lodged after two days. 5. It is further submitted that 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application. 7. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947; the absence of corroborative evidence in the prosecution case; the apparent lack of ingredients necessary to attract Section 69 BNS; and further keeping in view the fact that the applicant, a 19-year-old boy, is languishing in jail since 06.08.2025 without any criminal antecedents, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Mahtab @ Lal Badshah involved in Case crime No. 154 of 2025 under Section 69, 89, 115 (2) Β.N.S. 2023 & Section- 5/6 of POCSO Act 2012, P.S. Aliganj, District Ambedkar Nagar, 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. BAIL No. 8739 of 2025 2 (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 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 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 16, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 8739 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench