Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142776 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28547 of 2025 Applicant :- Arend Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 24.07.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2025, under Sections 64, 74, 351(3), 352 of BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Balabehat, District Lalitpur, 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 although the applicant is named in the FIR but he has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations are per se false. The FIR is delayed by eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that as per ossification test report, age of the victim has come up to be 17 years, although by her looks, the victim seems to be major and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.05.2025 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. With respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years can be granted to the applicant on the upper side in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed 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, whereby it has been 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. 9. 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 delay in institution of FIR coupled by 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. 10. Let the applicant- Arend, 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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