Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64746 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6340 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Mishra,G.A.,Krishna Kumar Shukla,Shailendra Kumar Ojha Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record, which indicates the age of the victim to be 16 years. 3. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.192 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 351(3), 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mant, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 14 years old, on 08.08.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 6 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 16 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet will and had expressed her willingness to stay with him only. Learned counsel has also stated that another FIR was instituted by the same informant regarding enticing away the same victim against the applicant and the applicant is on bail in the said case. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that except that case, the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim is marginally less than 14 years old, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 11. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is delayed by about 6 days coupled with the fact that the victim is a consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Sonu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 16. The original ossification test report received shall be returned to the office of the C.M.O. concerned after retaining the photostat copies of the same on record. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad