Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84243 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17229 of 2025 Applicant :- Karan Chaurasiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nagendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Pratap 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.748 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 65 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant against unknown person regarding her missing minor daughter, aged about 15 years, since 13.09.2024 between 8-9 a.m. 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 about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is stated to be fifteen and half years old as her date of birth as per high-school certificate is 19.03.2009. The said age has been deliberately suppressed by the informant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had gone with the applicant all the way from Gorakhpur to Delhi and had remained there for a substantial period of time, although she has stated that the applicant had raped her. The said statement has been given after legal consultation. The victim has not raised any alarm whatsoever during her sojourn to and fro Delhi from Gorakhpur. The two places are more than 700 kilometers apart. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that subsequent to the instant FIR, FIR No.586 of 2024 has been instituted by the same informant regarding elopement of the same victim with the applicant, which also indicates her consent and fortifies the argument tendered by the applicant regarding the victim being a consenting party. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.03.2025 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 on the ground that the victim was minor aged less than 16 years, as such, her consent, if any, has no significance in the eyes of law. 9. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. It is also settled by Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. 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- Karan Chaurasiya, 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 :- 20.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad