HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41654 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri S. D. Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2025, under Sections 70(2), 308(5), 126(2), 351(3), 310(2), 317(3), 115(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no incriminating material against him. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has not assigned the role of committing gang rape on him and the applicant has been assigned the role of recording a video of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years and 8 months as per high school certificate and the age of the victim has been found to be 19 years as per ossification test. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 13.04.2025, in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by them that the applicant took active part in the alleged incident and he is said to have recorded a video of the alleged incident and the said video has been recovered from the mobile phone of the co-accused Rinku. It is further submitted by them that the victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years and 8 months as per certificate of high school and the age of the victim has been found to be 19 years as per ossification test and the certificate of high school shall prevail over the ossification test. 5. As per first information report, the applicant and the co-accused persons robbed the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Mishra, Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Sanjeev Kumar, Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manju Singh, Syed Imran Ibrahim Ajay Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) victim and one Avinash of some cash and jewellery and all of them are also said to have committed gang rape on the victim and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has not assigned the role of committing gang rape on the victim and the applicant has been assigned the role of recording a video of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years and 8 months as per high school certificate and the age of the victim has been found to be 19 years as per ossification test and no injuries have been found on her external parts. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of one case subsequent to the present case under the Gangsters Act has been lodged against the applicant and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 13.04.2025. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED. 8. Let the applicant- Ajay Kumar involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Verification of mobile number and BAIL No. 41654 of 2025 2 Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned. 11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through Jail Superintendent, Kasganj via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685. September 8, 2026 RKM BAIL No. 41654 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad