Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84061 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35079 of 2024 Applicant :- Sirajuddin @ Sirru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Som Veer Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Som Veer, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sirajuddin @ Sirru with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 212 of 2024, under Sections 376D, 506 of IPC, and section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kosi Kala, District- Mathura during pendency of trial. 3. As per the ossification test report sent by the C.J.M., Mathura, the age of the victim is about 17 years. 4. There is allegation against the applicant of committing the offence of rape against minor girl. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a case of false implication and as per medical report of the victim, her age has been found to be 17 years. Given margin of one year on higher side, she can be considered to be major. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She was consenting party and due to fear of social ignominy she got the applicant implicated in this case. He has criminal history of one case and is languishing in jail since 02.04.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC)LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. 8. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 10. Office is directed to return the original ossification test report of the victim to the C.J.M., concerned in sealed cover within one week. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Mini Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad