HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44081 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K.Pradhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prakash Kumar Yadav, counsel for the informant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 272 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 24.10.2025. The first information report was lodged on 31.10.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim is major. As per the ossification test report, the victim was found aged 17 years. The range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. It is next contended that the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Maihar, performed marriage and established relations with him. There is no allegation of forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 05.11.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA and the counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kartikey Dubey, Man Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prakesh Kumar Yadav, Saurabh Paul Dharmendra Kumar Saroj .....Applicant(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the ossification test report, the victim was found aged 17 years. The victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant, performed marriage and established relations with him. There is no allegation of forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Dharmendra Kumar Saroj, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. March 19, 2026 Lbm/- BAIL No. 44081 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad