Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67178 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14231 of 2025 Applicant :- Atul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Prasad Mahant Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiva Kant, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.486 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gaunda, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 16 years, on 21.11.2024 at about 8:00 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. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim was recovered and her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was recorded on 26.11.2024 and she has not whispered a single word against the applicant. The next day, she again left her house and is stated to have been again recovered on 31.12.2024 and her subsequent statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was recorded on 04.01.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in the said statement, she has changed the version and has stated that she was taken by one Anuj to his place and was raped upon and subsequently the applicant also reached there and raped her. Learned counsel has further stated that the said allegations are per se false. The said contradictory statements of the victim speaks volume of false implication. She has left her house twice and is major. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that as per ossification test report, the victim was 18-19 years old and a leverage of two years may also be granted to the applicant on the upper side, as such, her age comes out to be more than 20 years. There is no medical corroboration of the incident and there is no injury sustained by the victim. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the age of the victim comes out to be barely 13 years only as her date of birth is 28.05.2011 as per high-school certificate and she being minor, her consent, if any, pales into insignificance and the instant case is of rape by two persons, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the facts that the age of the victim has come out to be 18-19 years as per ossification test report coupled with the facts that the FIR is delayed by about two days and there being two contradictory statements of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., 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- Atul, 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. 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 :- 30.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad