Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62187 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7012 of 2025 Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Adya Prasad Tewari,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prateek Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the informant, as well as 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. 20 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. 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 16 years old as per School certificate and is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. She has married the applicant. 6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.1.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application on the ground that the date of birth of the victim is 2.2.2011, as such, she is minor and her consent, if any, cannot be taken into consideration in the eyes of law. Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the victim is the consenting party, 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. 9. Let the applicant- Monu 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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 :- 24.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad