HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28620 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ram Murti Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhavisya Sharma, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.56 of 2025, under Sections 87, 137(2), 115(2), 351(3), 123 B.N.S., Police Station Gujaini, District Kanpur Nagar, 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. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the circumstances, although she has stated that she was rendered unconscious by administering her some obnoxious material in Dew cold-drink. She has categorically stated that she was kept in open and even she was accessible to a mobile phone. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim by her looks, seems to be major, although as per high-school certificate, her date of birth is 25.09.2009, whereby her age has been deliberately suppressed. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Murti Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhavisya Sharma, G.A. Omkar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. It is also settled by Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person. 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. 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 fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, 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- Omkar, 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 pressurise/intimidate with 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 11, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 28620 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad