Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41651 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 199 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mumtaz Ali Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mumtaz Ali, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.252 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 137(2), 127(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Chapar, District Muzaffar Nagar, 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. The victim was recovered by the informant after taking frantic search from the house of the applicant on 31.08.2024. The FIR is delayed as there is no mentioning of time of recovery of the victim. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is evident from the circumstances and she had gone with the applicant to his house, although she has stated that the applicant would have raped her, but did not do so as her brother had reached there, but subsequently at the fag end of her statement, she has stated that she was raped upon by the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said statement is self contradictory, as such, cannot be taken into consideration. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. As per ossification test report, the age of the victim is between 16- 17 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.09.2024 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court 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 has 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Ajay Kumar, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 21.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad