Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33050 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8153 of 2025 Applicant :- Gulsan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 27.02.2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.361 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87 and 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Pawai, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name has come up for the first time in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she is a consenting party. She has gone with the applicant all the way to Mumbai and had established corporeal relationship with him on her own consent. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per Class-IXth school certificate, her date of birth is 28.03.2008, as such, her age comes out to be 16 years, 7 months and 23 days, although she has herself stated her age to be more than 16 years at the time of her medical examination. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said document of Class-IXth is not admissible in light of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Gulsan, 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. 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 :- 7.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad