Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90269 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18192 of 2025 Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 09.05.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 492) of POCSO Act, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the contractor Rajesh Kumar is stated to have enticed away his two minor daughters on 06.03.2024 at about 7 p.m. when they had gone to ease themselves out. 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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 5 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that two victims i.e. V1 and V2 had gone with the co-accused Rajesh who is named in the FIR. It implies that they are consenting party but subsequently, in their respective statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., V1 has stated that the applicant along with named accused Rajesh had gang raped her in the car but V2 has not nominated the applicant at all. 7. It is further stated that there is a major discrepancy in the age of both the victims as one victim has mentioned herself to be 15 years and 8 months old only and the other victim has stated herself to be 16 years old, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim could be retrieved about nine days after they had gone with the co- accused Rajesh. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and there being no medical corroboration, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Shailendra Kumar, 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 the 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 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad