HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26767 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Two personal affidavits filed by learned A.G.A. are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Manish Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohammad Ahmar Malik, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87 B.N.S., Police Station- Kokhraj, District- Kaushambi, 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. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per the ossification test report her age has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.2.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, Mohammad Ahmar Malik Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, G.A. Sadab .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the statement of victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Sadab, 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 pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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. September 15, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 26767 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad