Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55585 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12405 of 2025 Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- G.A.,Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 03.04.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 64 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Zafarganj, District - Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant on 23.05.2024 between 11:00 AM to 04:00 PM. 5. 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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 20 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from the fact that she had gone with the applicant and one another person all the way to Pune and stayed with him for about four months. It is argued that the said statement is contradictory to the FIR as she has stated that she returned back to her native place and instituted the FIR. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major although as per her ossification test report and high school marksheet, her age is stated to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on upper side in light of settled law laid down by Supreme Court. There is no medical evidence to corroborate the prosecution story. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. The age of the victim as per high school certificate is 16 years, as such, she may be considered major in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. 10. A leverage of two years can also be granted to the applicant on upper side in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed 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, whereby it has been 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. 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. 12. Let the applicant- Suraj, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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:- 16.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad