Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78611 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16230 of 2025 Applicant :- Vardhan @ Sohel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shanker Pandey 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 Shyam Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Khatauli, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant in collusion with co- accused person Mohit @ Javed is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 17 years on 24.2.2025 at about 02:00 p.m. 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 three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 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., whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet-will. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be between 16-17 years old as per the ossification test report, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 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 28.2.2025 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. 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 FIR and the statement of 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- Vardhan @ Sohel, 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 :- 14.5.2025/ Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad