Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48940 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10516 of 2025 Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 26.03.2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 119 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Phugana, District Muzaffar Nagar during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with one Sandeep is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 12.09.2023 at about 02:00 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 more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The consent of the victim is but evident from the time of her elopement which is 02:00 AM. Her consent can also be drawn from the fact that she has stated in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that she was taken by the applicant and one Kapil all the way to Dehradun and she did not raise any alarm during the said journey whatsoever. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the statement of the victim is contradictory regarding her recovery as she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was left over at Dehradun by the applicant, while the victim has been recovered from Muzaffarnagar. As per her ossification report, the age of the victim has come out to be 17-18 years and a leverage of two years on either side may be granted to the applicant 8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Let the applicant- Neeraj, 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. 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 :- 5.4.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad