HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33501 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application, under Section 483 B.N.S.S., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 195 of 2026, under Sections 351(3), 352, 137(2), 87 B.N.S. and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Police Station- Kyoladia, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a major. The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records disclosing her age and the entries made are unbelievable. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has stated that she voluntarily left her house. There is no allegation against the applicant. However, the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., narrated an entirely different version and stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the applicant to Bareilly and married him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. It is contended that the material inconsistencies between the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredits the prosecution case. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 18.07.2026 having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rakesh @ Rakesh Babu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that there are inconsistencies between the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Rakesh @ Rakesh Babu, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. September 29, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 33501 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad