Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52729 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8831 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.271 of 2024, under Sections 351(3), 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 14.07.2024 at about 11:00 p.m. and had committed rape with her. The said fact was revealed by the victim to the informant after being asked by him. 5. 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 22 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per Class-Vth school certificate, her date of birth is stated to be 04.01.2009, as such, her age comes out to be 15 years, 6 months and 10 days. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the said document has no evidentiary value being hit by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2024 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 State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have 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- Rahul, 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 :- 10.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad