HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2679 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Ratna, holding brief of Sri Sanjeev Patel, counsel for the informant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.42 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Mauaima, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that 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. As per the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stayed with the applicant for two days and established relations with him. It is contended that the victim had not raised any protest or alarm. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 15.09.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alka, Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Rekha Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akanksha, G.A., Sanjeev Patel Sudheer Yadav Alias Deepu Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stayed with the applicant for two days and established relations with him. The victim did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. Further, at this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than six months and after submission of the charge sheet 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Sudheer Yadav Alias Deepu Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (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. March 19, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 2679 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad