Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86537 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12167 of 2025 Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Sonkar @ Satyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajkumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanatan Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajkumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanatan Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 209 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)(ट) of BNS and Sections 5(ट)(ठ)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Khakhreru, District - Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the victim by entering into her house on 19.12.2024 at about 02:00 AM. 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 13 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has admitted the fact that the victim is blind but the allegations are outraging the modesty only but subsequently after legal consultations, the allegations have been escalated to that of rape at the time of recording of statement of the victim u/s 180 BNSS. Subsequent to it , the story has again been changed to that of outraging the modesty in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail as the victim has kept on changing her version. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that as per FIR, the victim is 20 years old. The victim by her looks seems to be major although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on upper side in light of law laid down by Supreme Court. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 8. Learned counsel has next contended that criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 10. With respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years can be granted to the applicant on the 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. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay of 13 hours in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the victim has changed her version at every stage and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Shailendra Kumar Sonkar @ Satyam, 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. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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:- 21.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad