Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74292 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15586 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 21.03.2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.224 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)(m), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Dubauliya, District Basti, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 20.09.2024 at about 12:00 p.m. by taking her to his house. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about three months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. The victim is major aged about 18 years as per ossification test report and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 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 the FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident coupled with the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, 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- Amit 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 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 :- 8.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad