Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82010 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15843 of 2025 Applicant :- Tarun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman 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 2.5.2025. 3. Heard Sri Mohd. Yasif, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant as well as 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. 36 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad, 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. 6. It is further argued that the victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. By her looks, she seems to be major. As per High School certificate, her date of birth is 22.1.2008, as such, she was more than 17 years old but the said age has been suppressed. 7. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.3.2025. 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 but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 9. In the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, 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. 11. Let the applicant- Tarun, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 17.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad