Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27713 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1246 of 2025 Applicant :- Akash Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. AND Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33631 of 2024 Applicant :- Akash Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Archana Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Services Committee and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. In compliance of the earlier order of this Court, original ossification test report from the office of C.M.O. concerned is on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 154 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act and added Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, during the pendency of trial. 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. It is next stated that the the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that she has stated in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had gone with the applicant all the way to Jaipur and thereupon had come back to Ghaziabad and both of them had solemnized marriage there. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major, although as per ossification test report also, her age has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 6. 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. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2024 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. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the marriage was solemnized on the basis of Aadhar Card which is not admissible document in support of her age, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. As per ossification test report, the age of the victim is 16 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side in the 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 be predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 10. 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. 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- Akash Prajapati, 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. 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. 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. 15. The original Ossification Test Report be returned back to the office of C.M.O. concerned after retaining the photocopy of the same. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad