Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87894 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7162 of 2025 Applicant :- Jeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Sharma,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 24.02.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 815 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 115(2) 64(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Puwanya, District Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the applicant in collusion with co-accused person had enticed away his minor daughter on 26.11.2024 at about 5 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 2 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is major, although as per High School Certificate, her date of birth is stated to be 01.01.2007, as such she is marginally less than 18 years. The victim seems to be a consenting party as she had gone with the applicant all the way to Haryana and stayed with him for more than one month. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, has opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Jeet, 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad