Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55401 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12257 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd Shakib @ Shaka Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Sakir,Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.516 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)m, 65(1) B.N.S. and 4(2)/5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Thakurdwara, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage (Nikah). 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the school certificate of Class-Xth, the age of the victim is more than 16 years, but the said age has been suppressed by the informant. The victim is major in light of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it is 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. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant is ready to take care of the victim and marry her, as such, he may be enlarged on bail. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that he has no objection, if the applicant is ready to marry the victim. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Mohd Shakib @ Shaka, 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 marry the victim within a period of three months from the date of his release from jail. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (iii) 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad