HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9048 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 version, it is alleged that on 12.07.2025 at about 8:30 p.m., the applicant enticed away the informant’s minor daughter, aged about 14 years. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the victim has not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that she was a consenting party and had voluntarily accompanied the applicant. The medico-legal examination of the victim does not reveal any abnormality or indication of use of force. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the bail application, arguing that as per the school records, the victim’s age is 14 years, whereas the ossification test indicates her age to be between 16 and 17 years. 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. Perused the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bisunbablu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anees Raidas .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Upon perusal of the rejection order, it emerges that while the medico-legal report reflects the victim’s age as 19 years, the case diary produced by the learned AGA, it appears that as per the medico-legal examination report, age of the victim has been found to be 16-17 years. It is a settled principle, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of J & K (1982) 2 SCC 538, that radiological examination for age determination carries a margin of error of two years on either side. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused on the higher side. 8. Considering the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the absence of any corroborative injury in the medico-legal examination, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaya Mala (supra), the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, and further noting that the applicant is in custody since 14.07.2025 without any criminal antecedents, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant Anees Raidas involved in Case Crime No. 179/2025, U/s 137(2)/87/65(1) of BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Dalmau, District- Raebareli, 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. BAIL No. 9048 of 2025 2 (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). 13. 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 22, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 9048 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench