Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73464 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15297 of 2025 Applicant :- Farman @ Giri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kr. Srivastava,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 23.4.2025. 3. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.13 of 2025, under Sections 64, 137(2), 115(2), 123 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Gagalhedi, District- Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is a clear cut case of false implication as the victim has married the applicant. A petition for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted by the applicant prior to the institution of instant FIR. The instant FIR is just misuse of process of Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is major aged about 18 years as per the ossification test report, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.2.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that instant FIR was instituted after the petition U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the applicant and the age of the victim to be 18 years as per ossification test report coupled by the fact that there is 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. 10. Let the applicant- Farman @ Giri, 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. (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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 7.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad