Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135002 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16879 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aftab Khan,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aftab Khan, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Shivam Rajbhar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 135 of 2024, under Section 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 15.07.2024 by Smt. Savita Devi against the applicant alleging therein that on 05.06.2024 at about 5 pm her daughter aged about 14 years has gone from the house after which she was searched but could not be traced and she came to know that Shivam Rajbhar of the village has enticed her away. He has even previously also enticed her away. He has again taken away her daughter. A report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim had even previously eloped with the applicant of which a first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 0002 of 2022, under Section 363 I.P.C., Police Station Birno, District Ghazipur, the copy of the same has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit. It is submitted that in so far as the previous incident of the applicant taking away the victim is concerned, the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 27.03.2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Court) / Children Court, Ghazipur passed in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2024 as at that point of time the applicant was a juvenile. It is submitted that the victim has again eloped with the applicant and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the prosecution relies upon a document being a certificate of the school of class-2 of the victim in which her date of birth is mentioned as 17.08.2010 but the same cannot be given credence since it is not a certificate of class-5th or class-8th of the victim which would have some more genuinity and persuasiveness. It is submitted that as such the document with regard to the age of the victim should not be considered. It is submitted that the victim is a consenting party who went with the applicant out of her own sweet-will. The applicant has no criminal history except two criminal cases which were lodged by the parents of the victim as stated in para 23 and is in jail since 29.08.2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is a minor girl as her date of birth recorded in the school records is 17.08.2010 and thus she was aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that the certificate of the school first attended would have prevalence over any other document and the argument that the certificate of class-5th or class-8th would have more persuasive value is not correct. It is submitted that since the victim is a minor and it is the second case of the applicant of the same nature with the same victim, the bail application be rejected. It is submitted that since the victim is a minor her consent, if any, cannot be looked into at this stage. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a minor aged about 14 years as her date of birth is recorded as 17.08.2010 in the school records. The consent of a minor is of no worth. The applicant is named in the first information report and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. The applicant was previously also involved in a case of same nature with the same victim. No ground for bail is made out. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad