Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50846 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9791 of 2025 Applicant :- Raja Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.491 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B, 504, 376(2)(n) I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Iglas, District- Aligarh, 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. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Her consent can be drawn from the fact that she had taken Rs.1.62 lakh and certain ornaments alongwith her. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per the school certificate of Class-8th her date of birth is stated to be 12.1.2008, as such, she was more than 15 years old. The said document cannot be taken into consideration being barred by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.6.2024 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. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 9. 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. 10. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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- Raja, 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 :- 8.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad