Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61771 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13330 of 2025 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Alias Vijay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Masoom Alam, Advocate holding brief of Sri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0086 of 2024, under Sections 87, 137(2), 64 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Dramandganj, District - Mirzapur, 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 and had later on refused to comply with the said promise. 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 in her statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS has stated her age to be 18 years and as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be between 16 to 17 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on upper side. The victim had even approached this Court by filing a writ petition for protection. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as stated by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. 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. The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, has stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape. 9. This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented before it and its interpretation as per law. 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- Arun Kumar Alias Vijay, 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. 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:- 23.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad