Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63452 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13741 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahtab Alias Inamul Shah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sadhu Sharan Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sadhu Sharan, learned counsel for the informant, as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kasimabad, District Ghazipur, 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. 6. It is further stated that the victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had gone with the applicant to several places and even changed the State. The victim had even taken away her clothes and cash worth Rs. 11,000/- from her house, which indicates her consent. 7. It is further stated that the victim, by her looks, seems to be major, although as per radiological examination report, she was 14-16 years old, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.1.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the date of birth of the victim, as per Class IX certificate, is 1.1.2010, as such, she being minor, her consent, if any, cannot be taken into consideration in the eyes of law. 10. 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. 11. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the victim is 14-16 years old as per radiological examination report and is the consenting party, 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. 13. Let the applicant- Mahtab Alias Inamul Shah, 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. 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 :- 25.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad