Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52672 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11827 of 2025 Applicant :- Pancham Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Furquan Ahmad (Alvi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Furquan Ahmad (Alvi), learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.791 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Dhanghata, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that she had married the applicant and she had a child born out of the said corporeal relationship. She has also expressed her willingness to stay with the applicant only. The instant case is misuse of process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim has stated herself to be 22 years old at the stage of recording of her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Although she is stated to be 16 years old as per the ossification test report, but by her looks she seems to be major, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. 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. 8. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Pancham, 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 10.4.2025/Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad