Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88017 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15844 of 2025 Applicant :- Kaushindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tiwari 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 9.5.2025. 3. Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, 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.25 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Ahmadgarh, District- Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 4.2.2025. 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 two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be marginally less than 17 years of age as per the school certificate of Class-9th. The said document cannot be taken into consideration being barred by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 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 14.2.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525 the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim. 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 the statement of the victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. 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. 12. Let the applicant- Kaushindra, 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 :- 23.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad