Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61402 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10949 of 2025 Applicant :- Pradeep Kharwar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti Singh,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nilesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.07 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Singramau, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 15.1.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR does not mention the time of offence. The allegations are per se false. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that she had travelled with the applicant to several places and stayed with him at Dehradun, as such, as an afterthought she has levelled the allegations of rape against the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per the school certificate of Class-10th, her date of birth is 15.7.2008, as such, she is 16 and a half years old. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.2.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Pradeep Kharwar, 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. 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 :- 23.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad