HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18727 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Case called out. Counsels for the informant are not present. Earlier, on 11.8.2026 the case was adjourned on account of absence of counsel for the informant. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.28 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Raya, District- Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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. Placing reliance upon the statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., it is contended that the victim had accompanied the applicant to Rajasthan by a public transport. The victim was present at public places, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. Such conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. The medical examination report does not support the prosecution version. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 28.01.2026 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Kumar Mishra, Alok Ranjan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Vipin Pandey Dharmendra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has 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 as per the statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., she had accompanied the applicant to Rajasthan by a public transport. Such conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. 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 nine 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. 7. Let the applicant Dharmendra, involved in the aforesaid case 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; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 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. September 8, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 18727 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad