HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8839 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 on 26.02.2025 at about 7:00 a.m., the informant’s minor daughter, aged about 14 years, went to the temple to perform pooja but did not return home. It is further stated that she had also taken her mobile phone while leaving. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the victim’s first statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, no allegation was made against the applicant. In that statement, the victim stated that she of her own accord went with the applicant to Kanpur and thereafter to Jaipur. However, in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, an improvement was made and, for the first time, an allegation of rape was levelled. It is further pointed out that the medico-legal examination did not reveal any abnormality or injury on the person of the victim. The radiological age of the victim was assessed as 17 years. It has been further submitted that margin of error in ascertaining age by radiological examination is two years on either side as held by Supreme Court in Jaya Mala versus Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and others (1982)2 SCC 538 and the applicant being the accused is entitled for giving the benefit on higher side. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aiyyaz Mansuri, Mohd Siraj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suneel Saini .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. It is further argued that both the victim and the complainant have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 before the trial court and have turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution case, and hence there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence. 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant, aged about 29 years, had travelled from Jaipur to commit the alleged offence. 7. Having regard to the facts that both the victim and the complainant have already been examined before the trial court; improvements have been made by the victim at successive stages of the prosecution; there is no corroborative medical evidence and considering that the applicant is in custody since 02.03.2025 without any criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the case is fit for granting bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Suneel Saini involved in Crime No. 150/2025, Under section- 65(1), 87, 137(2) B.N.S & 3/4 P.O.C.S.O Act, Police station- Kotwali, District- Unnao, 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek BAIL No. 8839 of 2025 2 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. 8839 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench