HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2561 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. As per office report dated 24.2.2026, notice of the present bail application has been personally served upon the opposite party no.4/ informant. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 365 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 78(1), 351(3) B.N.S., and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station- Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is 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. The victim in her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has not levelled any allegation against the applicant. However, the victim in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has narrated an entirely different version. It is contended that the inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredit the prosecution case at this stage. The victim has also refused to get herself internally examined. As per the medical report dated 30.10.2025 no mark of injury was found on external examination. The applicant is in jail since Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyanesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sumit .....Applicant(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 30.10.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. As per the medical report dated 30.10.2025 no mark of injury was found on external examination. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than four 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 intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant, Sumit involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. March 18, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 2561 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad