Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87642 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16402 of 2025 Applicant :- Aditya Sahani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Singh Gautam,G.A.,Mohitosh Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahitosh Singh, 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.54 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)M, 87, 137(2) B.N.S. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. It was suspected by the informant that the applicant had enticed away her minor daughter on 10.03.2025 at about 1:30 p.m. 5. The victim is stated to have taken away certain ornaments and Rs.5,000/- alongwith her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. The consent of the victim can be drawn from the fact that she had taken away ornaments and Rs.5,000/- alongwith her, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. 9. Much reliance has been placed on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she was taken way by force by the applicant on a bike alongwith one of his friend to Ballia, thereupon she was given some spiked water, as such, she was rendered unconscious and regained her consciousness at Allahabad. 10. The victim has not whispered a single word about being subjected to sexual assault. 11. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as the victim has refused her medical examination. 12. The date of birth of the victim as per Class-Xth school certificate is 03.06.2008, as such, she was 16 years, 9 months and 7 days old at the time of incident. 13. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.03.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT: 14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the co-accused persons, who are family members of the applicant, have posted certain messages on a fake Instagram I.D. and have threatened the informant to post indecent photographs and video of the victim, thereby have attempted to malign the victim in society. 15. The family members do have the indecent photographs and video of the victim, which have been made viral by the co-accused persons. The said FIR No.111 of 2025 has been instituted under Section 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 67-A I.T. Act against Munna Sahani, Sandeep Sahani, Sachin Sahani and unknown Gram Pradhan, Khadipur, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 16. 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 there being no medical corroboration of the incident coupled with the fact that the name of the applicant does not find mention in the array of accused persons of the said FIR No.111 of 2025, 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. 17. Let the applicant- Aditya Sahani involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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. 18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 19. 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 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad