Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53516 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12047 of 2025 Applicant :- Adarsh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Seema Pandey, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee, 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.103 of 2024, under Sections 127(2), 65(1), 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Aung, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim by forcing her into his room alongwith her by-cycle on 28.08.2024 between 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 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 is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim herself has stated to be a student of Class XIIth, as such, she was major. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the age of the victim has been mentioned to be about 14 years as per high school certificate, but the said age has been suppressed by the informant. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee 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. It is also settled by Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person. 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. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 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- Adarsh, 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. 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 :- 11.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad