Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56694 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8497 of 2025 Applicant :- Kamal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Compliance affidavit filed today by learned AGA is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 456 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376(3) of IPC and Sections 5(J)(II)(L)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bisrakh, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS whereby she has stated that she had married the applicant. The victim by her looks seems to be major and as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on upper side in light of settled law of Supreme Court. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned AGA 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. 7. With respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years can be granted to the applicant on the upper side in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed 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, whereby it has been 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. 8. 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. 9. Let the applicant- Kamal, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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:- 17.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad