Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85971 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15183 of 2025 Applicant :- Sarvesh Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rayoof Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 10.5.2025. 3. Heard Sri Rayoof Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.223 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), 64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 17.3.2025 at about 02:00 p.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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major and as per the ossification test report her age has come out to be 17 years, although she is stated to be marginally less than 16 years of age as per the school certificate. As such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. Learned counsel has stated that the victim in her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. has not whispered a single word against the applicant. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.3.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned State Law Officer has 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 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. 12. Let the applicant- Sarvesh Rajbhar, 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 :- 21.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad