Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81630 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7842 of 2025 Applicant :- Anas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Jeet Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 05.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Counter affidavit filed today by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit. 3. Heard Sri Amar Jeet Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 324 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 351(2), 81 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. The victim by her looks seems to be major although as per High School Certificate, her age has come out to be 16 years, 6 months and 16 days. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, has opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Anas , 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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 :- 16.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad