Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88879 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15864 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Quasim Khan,Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.16 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 123, 74, 64(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken the victim by his car and had committed rape with her in the night of 19/20.01.2025. 5. 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 more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party, although she has cooked up the story that the applicant had rendered her unconscious by forcing her to intake some spiked drink. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the story as narrated by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. cannot be relied upon. The victim as per transfer certificate of class-VIIIth is 15 years, 5 months and 11 days old as her date of birth is 08.08.2009. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said document cannot be taken into consideration being hit by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 10. 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 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. 11. Let the applicant- Rahul, 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. 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 :- 26.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad