Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142431 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18525 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Choudhary,Nitesh Kumar Chaudhari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 454 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64 of BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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. 5. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 16 years and 7 months old as per High School Certificate. It is further stated that two FIRs were instituted by the same informant regarding elopement of the same girl i.e. the instant case and Case Crime No.811 of 2024. The applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Case Crime No.811 of 2024 vide order dated 24.04.2025, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. 6. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, has opined 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. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the fact that the victim is a consenting party, 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- Abhishek 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 :- 20.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad