Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78923 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15106 of 2025 Applicant :- Shaukeen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- S.M.Ayaz Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nasiruzzaman Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Shamsuzzaman Khan, holding brief of Sri S.M. Ayaz Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, holding brief of Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, 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 15 years, on 23.03.2024 at about 2 p.m. The victim is stated to have taken away golden ornaments weighing 40 gms. and Rs.28,500/- cash along with her. 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 11 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from the fact that she has taken away golden ornament weighing 40 gms and Rs.28,500/- along with her. The said allegations have been made to falsely implicate the applicant in the case. The applicant is the real brother-in-law of the victim and he has family dispute with his wife who is living in the house of the informant herself. The instant case is just to keep the applicant behind the bar by the informant. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim has refused her internal medical examination. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, she is stated to be 16 years old, as such leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2024 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. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the relationship with the victim comes within the prohibited degree as she is the real sister of the estranged wife of the applicant. Even the marriage cannot be solemnized with him by the applicant as per Muslim Law. The victim is aged about 15 years only, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. With respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years can be granted to the applicant on the upper side in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed 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, whereby it has been 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 and taking into consideration the delay of 11 days in lodging of the FIR coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and the victim is 16 years old as per ossification test report and had also taken away ornaments weighing 40 gms and Rs.28,500/- along with her, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Shaukeen , 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with 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 :- 14.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad