Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53521 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2027 of 2025 Applicant :- Akash Basfor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Kumar Maurya, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant, as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 155 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, 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 FIR is delayed by three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. It is further stated that the victim is the consenting party, as is evident from the fact that she has stated in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that the applicant had taken her to Madhya Pradesh on the false promise of marriage but did not marry her. Rather, he had established corporeal relationship with her. The said allegations are false, as the victim had not raised any alarm, whatsoever during her sojourn. The victim has not mentioned the particular place where the applicant had taken her to Madhya Pradesh, as it is a large state. 6. It is further stated that that victim, as per High School Certificate, was marginally less than 17 years. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.4.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but have not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 8. In the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, it has been stated 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. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 10. 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 settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Akash Basfor 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad