Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74885 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14344 of 2025 Applicant :- Sameer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh,Mohd. Irfan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 25.04.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Irfan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Khajuriya, District - Rampur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and the co-accused persons are stated to have enticed away the victim on 23.01.2025 at about 02:00 PM. 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 three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS has allayed the allegations of rape against the applicant and his uncle. The said story stands falsified as the closure report has been filed against the co-accused person and only the applicant has been nominated in the final report (charge- sheet). The victim is aged about 17 years 22 days as per class X school certificate. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.01.2025 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. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. The age of the victim as per high school certificate is marginally less than 18 years, as such, she may be considered major in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR, the age of the victim and also the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Sameer, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will 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:- 8.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad