Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74221 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15521 of 2025 Applicant :- Jokhu Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Kesharvani,Roshani Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 Ms. Roshani Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant 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.55 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(3) B.N.S. and 6, 5L POCSO Act, Police Station- Jafrabad, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the minor daughter of the informant on 10.9.2024 at about 06:30 a.m. when she was plucking vegetables from the field. He is stated to have continued the said relationship for several months. 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. The FIR is delayed by about six months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 17 years old as per the ossification test report, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.3.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor and as per the school certificate she was 16 years old only, as such, her consent, if any, has no value in the eyes of law. 10. The Supreme Court 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 has 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. 11. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of six months in institution of FIR, the age of the victim and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, 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- Jokhu Chauhan, 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 :- 8.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad