HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8875 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.121 of 2025 under Section 137(2), 65(1) BNS and 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Risia, District Bahraich. In the prosecution case it is alleged that the daughter of the informant, aged about 15 years, has been enticed away by the applicant on 23.5.2025 at about 2.00 p.m. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS stated her age to be 19 years. According to the said statement, she married the applicant of her own accord and free will. On the contrary, she has leveled allegations against the complainant and her father and further alleged that they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the applicant. It is further submitted that the victim, while giving her statement under Section 183 BNSS, has not supported the prosecution case. She has disputed her age and claimed to be 20 years old as per her Aadhaar card, though the informant has alleged that she is only 16 years of age. It is alleged that in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rama Kant Dixit, Uday Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vikram .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) order to falsely implicate the applicant, a forged Aadhaar card has been prepared. In her statement also, allegations have been made by the victim against her mother and father. It is further pointed out that in FIR No. 216 of 2024 anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant. The order is on record. At that time, a radiological examination of the victim was conducted and she was found to be 15–16 years old in the year 2024. Thus, on the date of occurrence she was easily 16–17 years old. In this regard, reliance has been 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 on the basis of radiological examination. It is argued that just to extract the money the informant and her husband have falsely implicated the applicant, which is evident from the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty so granted. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the victim is a minor and pregnant. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS; it appears that the minority of the victim has been disputed in her own statements; the charge-sheet has already been filed in this case; the applicant is in jail since 16.07.2025 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. BAIL No. 8875 of 2025 2 Let the applicant Vikram 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. (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 16, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8875 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench