Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61498 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6875 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Harendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Moti Lal Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. The attested copy of the ossification test report has been received, as per whereof, the victim is 18-20 years old. 3. Heard Sri Harendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Moti Lal, learned counsel for the informant, Mrs. Bindu Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that a last opportunity may be granted to him to file counter affidavit. 5. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that on the last date also i.e. on 1.4.2025, the case was adjourned on the prayer of counsel for the informant and the following order was passed : "1. List has been revised. 2. As a last opportunity, learned counsel for the informant is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. 3. The concerned Chief Medical Officer shall constitute a medical board to conduct ossification test so as to ascertain the age of the victim and attested copy of the report shall be produced before this Court on the next date of listing. In case, the same is not submitted on the next date of listing, the concerned Chief Medical Officer shall appear in person. 4. The police authorities are directed to assist the concerned Chief Medical Officer. 5. Learned A.G.A. shall also look over the matter and direct the State Authorities to get the ossification test of the victim conducted. 6. List this case on 23.4.2025 in the daily cause list among top 20 cases, along with attested copy of the said report. 7. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the C.M.O. concerned through the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within 48 hours for intimation and necessary compliance." 6. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(2), 352 B.N.S. and 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Pawai, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further stated that the victim is major, being 18-20 years old as per the ossification test report and is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.1.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim, as per school certificate, is 13 years old only. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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. 12. Let the applicant- Raj, 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. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 :- 23.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad