Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24359 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5682 of 2025 Applicant :- Altaf Khan Alias Altaf Raza Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zafar Yab Khan,Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. Shri Suchit Tandon, learned A.G.A. for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2024 at Police Station-Trilokpur District-Siddharth Nagar under Sections 376DA I.P.C. and Section 5/6 and 13/14 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2024. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 16.01.2025. The following arguments made by Shahroze Khan, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned A.G.A. from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 16 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment. 2.The age of the victim set out in the prosecution case is refuted in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) and on the following grounds: (i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents. (ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. The school records disclosing her age as 15 years and 11 months are unreliable. (iii) The victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is 16 years of age respectively. (iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination test) records that the victim is 16 years of age. (v) The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is 17 years of age. Two submissions are made in regard to the aforesaid medical report. Firstly, 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. Secondly, the relevant scientific parameters as per latest medical protocol which would establish the majority of the victim has been excluded from consideration in the medical report. The medical report is flawed. In fact the victim is a major. 3. One Atikurrehman and not the applicant has been identified in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as the principal offender who committed rape with the victim and captured and transmitted her indecent videos. 4. The applicant was not named either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5. Subsequently false and aggravated allegations have been made by the victim against the applicant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of inimical parties only to save the failing prosecution case. 6. Major inconsistencies in the F.I.R. and statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. 7. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution. 8. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. 9. The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused person who has been granted bail by this Court on 27.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16551 of 2024. 10. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. 11. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Altaf Khan @ Altaf Raza be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad