Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87010 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9087 of 2025 Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav @ Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in S.T. No.11A of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.506 of 2015, under Sections 363, 376, 342, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 5(ठ)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Handia, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant against unknown person on 26.10.20215 stating that his daughter is missing since 20.10.2015 at 09:00 p.m. 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. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as she had travelled with the applicant to several places including Noida, which is about 600 kilometers apart, and had not raised any alarm whatsoever. The victim is major as per the ossification test report conducted on 3.11.2015, whereby she was found to be 20 years old, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations have been subsequently foisted against the applicant of having raped the victim. It is true that applicant is a married person having one child from the said marriage, but it is a matter of consensual relationship between two major persons. 8. Learned counsel has further stated that the co-accused person who happens to be brother of the applicant had faced trial and he has been acquitted in the said case and against the said order of acquittal, the informant and State both have filed an appeal before this Court and the appeal filed by the informant has been admitted. The lower court record has been called there and even the charge could not be framed against the applicant to date, as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated and 9. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant has tarnished the pious relationship between a teacher and student as he was the tutor of the victim and had enticed her away and committed rape with her. The victim was minor at the time of offence as her date of birth, as per the high school certificate, is 18.6.2000, whereby she was barely 15 years old, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 11. The Supreme Court 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 has 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. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that in the present scenario there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial against the applicant in near future coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and the FIR is delayed as also that the victim is about 20 years old as per ossification test report, 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. 13. Let the applicant- Pradeep Yadav @ Monu, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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 :- 22.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad