Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77860 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10505 of 2025 Applicant :- Muneeb Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury,Yasavant Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record and it indicates the age of the victim to be 17 years. 3. Heard Sri Prashant Pratap Rao, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yasavant Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 01.03.2025. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.1165 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and had later on refused to comply with the said promise. 7. 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 two and half months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 17 years. There is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and there being no medial corroboration of the incident and also taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 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- Muneeb Yadav, 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 pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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 :- 13.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad