Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87829 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17855 of 2025 Applicant :- Anand Kumar Bhartiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bholeshwar,Ram Krishna Tripathi 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 15.5.2025. 3. Heard Sri Bholeshwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.553 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 351(2), 64(2)M B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Naini, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 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. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that she had travelled with the applicant all the way to Kerala and had not raised any alarm during the said sojourn and stay whatsoever. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be between 16-18 years old, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim has refused her medical examination, as such, there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2024 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. Learned A.G.A. has 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 FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident coupled by the fact that victim has not raised any alarm whatsoever, 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- Anand Kumar Bhartiya, 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. 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 :- 23.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad