HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26984 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2025, under Sections 87, 137(2) of BNS, Police Station Kagarol, District Agra, 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 FIR itself is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim seems to be a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS whereby she has categorically stated that she was in love with the applicant and has expressed her willingness to stay with him. The victim by her looks seems to be major and as per ossification test report, she is aged about 18 years. 6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.06.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Singh Aman .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per High School Certificate, age of the victim is 16 years, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. As per ossification test report, age of the victim is 18 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side in the 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 the FIR and also taking into account the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS, 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- Aman, 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 11, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 26984 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad