HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30226 of 2025 Court No. - 65 (Sl. No.133 out of 262) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Amar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) BNS and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Beeta-2, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. Both the parties are ready to marry each other as agreed upon by their family members. The victim, by her looks seems to be major, although her age has come out to be 17 years as per ossification test report and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amar Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Gupta, G.A., Shweta Singh Rana Saurabh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned A.G.A., learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant. 7. In the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Saurabh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. April 2, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 30226 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad