Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55680 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12351 of 2025 Applicant :- Nakul Yadav Alias Abhay Jeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Dinesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0058 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Mahuli, District - Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 09.03.2025 at about 09:30 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 two 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 her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. The victim by her looks seems to be major and as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 18 years. There is no injury sustained by her, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025 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. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor aged about 14 years and the consent, if any, of minor has no significance in the eyes of law. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 8. 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. 8. 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. 9. Let the applicant- Nakul Yadav Alias Abhay Jeet, 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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