HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33854 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Shri J. K. Chaurasiya, learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice upon the informant has been served on 16.09.2025. Thus, notice upon the informant is deemed to be sufficient. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that in the F.I.R. the informant who is mother of the victim has alleged that her daughter aged about 20 years had left the house on 31.03.2025 at about 8:30 a.m. on being annoyed, for which she had submitted missing report to the police on 08.04.2025. When her daughter returned to the house she informed her that the applicant had enticed away her and kept her. Learned counsel further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 20.06.2025 with an inordinate delay without there being any plausible explanation of delay. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has stated that on the date of incident the applicant took her and stayed her for two days in a hut at Sonbhadra, but in this statement she has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant. Thereafter, when the statement of victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was recorded she developed her story by stating that on the date of incident the applicant took her to Sonbhadra where he kept her for twelve days in room, thereafter, he took her to Deoria and kept her for three months where he used to beat her and used to commit her rape forcibly. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that at the time of her medical medical examination the victim informed the concerned doctor that she was in friendship with the applicant for the last one year, on the date of incident when the applicant asked her she went with him and reached to Sonbhadra, thereafter, Deoria, where they stayed as husband and wife in a rented room. In her medical examination no internal or external injury was found on her person and she was found Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Narendra Alias Bhattu Alias Surya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) pregnant of one month and as per radiolgical report the age of the victim was found to be about 16-17 years. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. and as per her statement given to the concerned doctor at the time of her medical examination it appears that the victim went with the applicant on her own wishes and consensual sexual relations were made between them, thus, victim is a consenting party and the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 24.06.2025, having no criminal history. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence, but he could not dispute that the victim appears to be a consenting party. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 6. Let the applicant-Narendra Alias Bhattu Alias Surya be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2025, under Sections 87, 64(1), 137(2), 115(2) of B.N.S. and Section 5j(2)/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Kotwali Chunar, District- Mirzapur, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) 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 BAIL No. 33854 of 2025 2 to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 7. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. October 7, 2025 Mustaqeem. BAIL No. 33854 of 2025 3 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad