Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87720 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15361 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ruchi Devi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 2.5.2025. 3. Heard Sri Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ruchi Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court Legal Service Committee as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.619 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District- Chitrakoot, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted under suspicion against one Sona by the informant on 10.9.2018 regarding his missing daughter since 2.9.2018 at 09:00 a.m. 6. 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. The FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 17 years old as per the ossification test report, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that proceedings of the present case were stayed by this Court, as such, applicant did not surrender earlier on. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for High Court Legal Service Committee have vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the statement of the victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., 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. 12. Let the applicant- Ashok Kumar, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 :- 23.5.2025/ Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad