Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82519 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14408 of 2025 Applicant :- Harsh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avdhesh Kumar Yadav,G.A.,Sundeep Shukla Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7013 of 2025. 3. Heard Sri Deepanshu Jadaun, holding brief of Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Kumar and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, holding brief of Sri Sundeep Shukla, learned counsels for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Fugana, District Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 15-16 years, on 01.11.2024 at about 10 a.m. 6. 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. 7. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim seems to be a consenting party as she had gone with the applicant all the way to Haridwar and has not raised any alarm to and fro her journey. The victim has stated that she was retrieved from the bus stand in her town only, as such it indicates her consent. 8. It is further stated that the victim has given contradictory statements regarding the applicant. On one hand, she has stated that the she had gone along with the applicant to bus stand Fugana and on the other hand before the doctor concerned, she has stated that she met the applicant in Haridwar itself. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution story. It is but natural that the victim might have sustained some redness or swelling on her private part. The doctor has categorically stated that he did not observe any injury on the internal or external part of the victim. The victim is aged about more than 15 years as per her High School Certificate as her date of birth is stated to be 13.09.2009. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsels for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, has opined 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. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay of 13 hours in lodging the FIR coupled by the fact that the victim had not raised any alarm to and fro Haridwar, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Harsh , 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall 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 :- 17.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad