HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2283 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 341 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 351(2), 115(2), 351 (3), 127(2), 137(2) BNS and Section 5g/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Mall, District Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years had left home and thereafter did not return. Subsequently a phone call was received from one of the accused Manoj stating that the victim was there and they can take her back. Subsequently he was informed that she had gone out of fear but was not aware that all three accused would commit wrong with her. In terms of said allegations the statement of the victim was recorded wherein she stated that she knew one of the accused Pradeep for the last six to seven months and they used to talk on telephone and physical relation was also formed in between them. However as they talked for last three months she was threatened that in case she does not come to Delhi then videos would be made viral as such she left for Delhi on 6.11.2024. It was specifically stated that when she reached there she called Manoj who took her to a godown where all of the accused committed wrong on her. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS also somewhat similar statement was made. The medical examination of the victim was done on 11.11.2024 after the FIR was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prince Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pradeep .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) lodged in 8.11.2024. The medical report on record does not allege any injuries despite the fact that in her statement she has stated physical injury was also caused to her. The tentative age of the victim is around 15 years. However there is no definite document regarding the age of the victim. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. 5. Considering the fact that the applicant had gone out of her own free will to Delhi and the video etc are not part of case diary and the medical does not corroborate the allegations, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 9.11.2024 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant Pradeep be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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. October 14, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 2283 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench