Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83022 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9058 of 2025 Applicant :- Akhilesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Shankar Kaithal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Priya Saxena Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Tej Om Prakash Gupta, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Shiv Shankar Kaithal, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Priya Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3, as well as Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 553 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S., 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant regarding his missing daughter aged about 15 years since 20.12.2024 at about 11.00 am. 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 3 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. It is further stated that the victim is major. As per ossification test report, she is stated to be 17 years old, as such, as leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 8. Learned counsel has further argued that the victim seems to be the consenting party, as she had gone all the way to Fhafhund, which falls in the district Auraiya and did not raise any alarm, whatsoever. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 have vehemently opposed the bail application but have not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the victim being the consenting party and the delay in institution of FIR, 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- Akhilesh, 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 :- 19.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad