Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73107 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2016 of 2025 Applicant :- Khalid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sachchida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Sachchida Nand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.267 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)(m), 65, 78, 351(3) B.N.S., 5L/6 POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Masuri, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim forcibly by taking her to a OYO hotel several times between 18.07.2024 to 10.08.2024. 6. 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 evident from the circumstances. As per ossification test report, the age of the victim has come out to be 18 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the judgments 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 and the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Khalid, 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. 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. 13. The original ossification test report received shall be returned to the office of the C.M.O. concerned after retaining the photostat copies of the same on record. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad