Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50206 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7518 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ayush Mishra,Yogendra Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldip Singh Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Yogendra Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.468 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad, 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, on 02.08.2024. The victim is stated to have taken away certain ornaments with her. 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 two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 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 to several places including Gurugram and Rajasthan and she has stated that she had married the applicant out of her own sweet will and has expressed her willingness to stay with the applicant only. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 17 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. She was found pregnant and the said pregnancy has been terminated by the informant. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025 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. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor and as per high school certificate, her date of birth was 01.01.2010, as such, she was about 14 years old at that time. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the marriage certificate of the applicant and the victim is forged document as the applicant has not filed the mark-sheet of the victim at the time of registration as it is mandatory to file birth certificate and mark-sheet at that time. Learned counsel has also stated that this Court has already ordered for taking up inquiry against Marriage Registrar, Ghaziabad, 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 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. 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 as per ossification test report, the victim is 17 years old coupled with the fact that the FIR is delayed by about two days and also taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., 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. 13. Let the applicant- Sanjeev Kumar, 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. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad