Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90043 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18103 of 2025 Applicant :- Prabhakar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aushim Luthra,Mayank Chandra,Surya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 15.05.2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 65(2), 333, 131, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Section 5m/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)5a and 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Bichwa, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have impregnated the victim by sexually assaulting her about nine months before the FIR and had established corporeal relationship with her subsequent to it also. 6. 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 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as per her own statement. The informant himself had thrown the dead body of the offspring born out of the said corporeal relationship in the garbage. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.01.2025 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 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 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- Prabhakar, 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 :- 27.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad