Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86428 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13818 of 2025 Applicant :- Sintu Yadav Alias Sandesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Pratap Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar Yadav,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Virendra Pratap Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, U/S 137(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2), 115(2), 70(2) B.N.S. and 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Narhi, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The co-accused person Manjeet Yadav is stated to have outraged the modesty of the minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years, on 5.1.2025 at 5.00 pm, while the applicant and the co- accused person Golu Yadav are stated to have hurled abuses at her, threatened her and thereafter, ran away from the place of occurrence. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. As per ossification test report, the age of the victim is less than 18 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be given to the applicant on the upper side. 8. Initially, in the FIR, there were allegations of hurling abuses and threatening the victim only but subsequently, the same have been escalated to that of gang-rape in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. after legal consultation. 9. There is no medical corroboration of gang-rape. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.1.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 10. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that as per Class 7th certificate issued by Principal of Radha International School, date of birth of the victim was 21.10.2011, as such, she was less than 14 years old at the time of the incident. 11. The medical examination of the victim has been conducted after a delay of about six days from the date of incident, as such, there was no possibility of observing any injuries on her body but the victim has been subjected to sexual assault by the applicant and other co-accused persons, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 12. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR and there being no medical corroboration of gang-rape, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Sintu Yadav Alias Sandesh Yadav involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 16. 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 :- 22.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad