HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29194 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2025, under Sections 137(2) of BNS, Police Station Etmaddaula, 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. 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. The FIR itself is delayed by five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. As per High School Certificate, age of the victim comes out to be 16 years 6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.07.2025 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Sushil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vijay Alias Rahul Nagotiya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) application. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, has opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. 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. 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 considering 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- Vijay alias Rahul Nagotiya, 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. September 16, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 29194 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad