HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8935 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Priyanka Tiwari, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 09.08.2025 at about 11:00 p.m., the accused, a resident of the same village, made a call on the mobile phone of the victim’s brother, thereafter called the victim, took her to his house, and committed rape. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the victim admitted that she had gone to the applicant’s house on her own after being called by him, where the alleged act took place. However, in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, improvements were made. It is further submitted that no alarm was raised at the time of the alleged incident, and the medico-legal examination revealed no abnormality. It is contended that the victim was a consenting party. Even if the prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the victim is above 16 years of age. As per the school records, no ossification test has been conducted. The statement of the victim does not inspire confidence, and the prosecution case lacks corroborative evidence. 4. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Shukla, O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Priyanka Tiwari, Shaurya Dev Singh, Shobhit Verma, Shweta Mishra Anoop Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the facts that the FIR was lodged after a delay of seven days without any satisfactory explanation; material improvements have been made in the prosecution case; absence of corroborative medical evidence; non-conduct of ossification test of the victim and the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, coupled with the circumstance that the applicant is in custody since 17.08.2025 without any criminal antecedents, I find this to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Anoop Kumar involved in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 351 of 2025, Under Section 64 (1) B.N.S. and Under Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Pali, District- Hardoi, 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 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, BAIL No. 8935 of 2025 2 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). 9. 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 19, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 8935 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench