Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66642 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14003 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Sonkar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar,Pandey Balkrishna 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. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 17.4.2025. 3. Heard Sri Aman Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.27 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Chakiya, District- Chandauli, 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. The FIR is delayed by about fifteen days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is true that victim is marginally less than 16 years old as per the academic records, but the applicant himself is about 18 years old. It is a case of consensual relationship between two adolescents. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.3.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. The POCSO Act was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. Nowadays more often than not it has become a tool for their exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents. However, this has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case. The fact of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail because it would amount to perversity of justice if the statement of victim was ignored and accused was left to suffer behind jail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the inordinate delay of fifteen days in institution of FIR 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. 9. Let the applicant- Raj Sonkar, 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad