Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73546 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14108 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Padmaker Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Satish Kumar Shukla,G.A.,Shweta Srivastava Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Shweta Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court Legal Service Authority and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 277 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Rawatpur, District Kanpur Nagar, 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 09.07.2024 at about 4:30 p.m. 5. 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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant to several places. She has mentioned her age to be 17 years in her statement. The applicant himself is aged about 27 years old. It is true that the applicant is stated to be a tutor of the victim but any allegation of use of force against the victim is false. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. As per school certificate of Class-Xth, date of birth of the victim is stated to be 15.10.2008, as such her age has come out to be 15 years, 8 months and 26 days. The age of the victim has been suppressed. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Service Authority have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has tarnished the pious relationship between the teacher and student, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. 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. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in FIR coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Vikash, 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. 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 :- 7.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad