Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66090 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12902 of 2025 Applicant :- Guddu @ Sukhveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Sidhpura, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 26.01.2025 at about 01:30 pm. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major although, she is stated to be 17 years old as per her ossification test report. 6. It has been further submitted that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that she had gone with the applicant all the way to Bengaluru and had married him as per her own statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.02.2025 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. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that the victim is a consenting party 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. 10. Let the applicant- Guddu @ Sukhveer, 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 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 29.4.2025 Priya (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad