HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13579 of 2023 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that minor son of the applicant has been enticed away by the applicant and anal intercourse has been committed upon him. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant who is having criminal antecedents is languishing in jail since 27.11.2022. It is submitted that the medical evidence is inconclusive, revealing only a linear abrasion on the victim's private part that is not linked to the alleged offense. The victim and the informant have been examined who have not supported the prosecution case. As the material witnesses have already testified, there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence. Moreover, in view of the fact that, contrary to the provisions of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, the victim’s statement was recorded after more than two and a half years instead of within the stipulated period of thirty days. 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. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Sharma, Kushboo Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Salmaan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) In view of the above, considering that the victim and the informant have been examined and have not supported the prosecution case, and the material witnesses have already testified leaving no possibility of tampering with evidence, coupled with the fact that the victim’s statement was recorded after an inordinate delay of more than two and a half years contrary to the provisions of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act and the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.11.2022 without having any criminal history, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Salmaan involved in Case Crime No- 514/2022, U/S 363, 377 IPC & 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station - Mahmudabad, District - Sitapur, 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. (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 BAIL No. 13579 of 2023 2 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). 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. October 8, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 13579 of 2023 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench