Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91426 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18282 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Omvir Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Niharika Singh Parihar,Suresh Chandra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Sri Alok Kumar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Sri Suresh Chandra, learned counsel for the informant and sought adjournment. The said prayer is refused. 3. Heard Sri Omvir Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Suresh Chandra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in the instant case the applicant has already been enlarged on bail U/s 363 and 368 I.P.C., as such, the bail application under the said sections is not pressed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary corrections in the memorandum of bail application, during the course of the day. 6. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.106 of 2024, under Sections 366, 376D, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO, Police Station- Palimukempur, District- Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 7. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against unknown person by the informant regarding his missing daughter since 5.4.2025 at about 12:00 p.m. 8. 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 two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant to Noida and the applicant had helped her in getting a job. She has further stated that she had stayed with the applicant for about four days and he had established corporeal relationship with her on the false promise of marriage. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim could be retrieved after a delay of more than four months. She by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 17 years old as per the school certificate of class-10th. Learned counsel has stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident either. 11. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.5.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 12. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 13. 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. 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. 14. 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 the statement of the victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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. 15. Let the applicant- Vishal Chaudhary, 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. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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 :- 28.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad