Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86872 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16187 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Gaurh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 12.05.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 187 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the instant case is a matter of consensual relationship between two adolescents. 5. 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 as alleged in the FIR. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is stated to be about 14 years old and the applicant is about 18 years old. The said fact stands mentioned in the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS. She has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet will and had married him and had even gone to Amritsar, Punjab. The victim has not raised any alarm whatsoever during the said sojourn and stay. 7. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.09.2024 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. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. POCSO Act was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. Now-a-days more often than not it has become a tool for their exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents. However, this has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case. The fact of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail because it would amount to perversity of justice if the statement of victim was ignored and accused was left to suffer behind jail. 10. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Vishal Gaurh, 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 the 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 :- 22.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad