Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67243 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12964 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Urf Ajay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 17.4.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025, under Sections 64(1) of B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Phaphamau, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 5. The applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the victim on 14.3.2025 at about 7.30 pm. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. It is further stated that the victim is 17-18 years old as per her ossification test report. She is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., as she has stated that the applicant had disrobed her and himself both. There is no sign of any struggle, whatsoever. 8. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.3.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., there being no medical corroboration, 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 Urf Ajay 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 :- 30.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad