Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83521 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16952 of 2025 Applicant :- Vipin Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to undertake the necessary corrections in the memorandum of bail application as well as in the prayer clause during the course of the day. 4. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shivangi Bhargava, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.60 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S. and Section 5(J)(2)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she married the applicant. She by her looks seems to be major, although she is 17 years old as per ossification test report and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2025 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. 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. 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- Vipin Srivastava, 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 :- 19.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad