HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12922 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.430 of 2025, under sections 70(2), 115(2), 331(4) BNS, Sections 5(i)(G)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that daughter of the informant was sleeping at home and was aged about 16 years when the accused named in the FIR came and hit her with a danda because of which she became unconscious and thereafter they took her to a separate place and committed wrong on her. In the statement under Section 180 BNSS the victim reiterated the said version. She also stated that she used to talk with the accused named in the FIR 4 to 5 months ago and when his wife came to know about it the victim stopped talking to the accused named in the FIR and on 31.10.2025 when she was sleeping with her younger brother the accused came to home and hit her with danda and thereafter she became unconscious and thereafter she was taken to a nearby place and wrong was committed on her. The applicant was not even named in the said statement. However in said statement under Section 183 BNSS the victim for the first time stated that she came in contact with the co accused Dhunmun who was married for last three to four months and his wife never liked their talking and subsequently on the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Kumar Maurya, Vikas Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Islam .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) date of incident two people entered one of which was the Dhunmun and the other was the accused hit her on head and thereafter both of them committed wrong on her at a separate place. Medical on record does not corroborate the allegations of rape although injury was noted from the head. The tentative age of the victim is around 16 years. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application. 5. Considering the huge variance in the two statements coupled with the fact that the medical on record does not corroborate the allegations of rape against the applicant prima facie it appears that a case of violence has been tried to be converted into the offence under Section 70(2), however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 7.11.2025 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant Islam 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. December 18, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 12922 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench