Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93412 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17614 of 2025 Applicant :- Monu Arya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Junaid Khan, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.29 of 2025, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 5 ठ/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim since 07.07.2019 on the false promise of marriage and had subsequently refused to comply with the said promise. 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 six years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. As per high school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 17.06.2002 and if the prosecution story is considered to be true, then also she was more than 17 years old, but the said story also stands falsified from the fact that the victim had given an application before the authorities concerned where the applicant was employed and she has stated that the said relationship started in the year 2021, as such, she was major at the said time of offence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the said allegations have been escalated just to take the matter fall within the purview of POCSO Act. It is a clear-cut case of false implication. There is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.04.2025 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 said year of initiation of crime was wrongly mentioned in the application before the authorities and the said fact has been mentioned by the victim in her statement. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the family members of the applicant had gone to the house of the victim and threatened them and forced them to enter into a compromise in the instant case, which stands fortified by the statements of several witnesses. 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 judgments of the Supreme Court passed in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 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- Monu Arya, 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 :- 30.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad