HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2773 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Vakalatnama, filed by Sri Mayank Gaurav, Advocate on behalf of the informant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Mayank Gaurav, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 696 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S., and 3/4 POCSO Act P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri, 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. As per the ossification test report, the victim was found aged 17 years. The range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. The victim in her statements under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S. has stated that she left her house voluntarily and had married the applicant. She is carrying a pregnancy of four months. There is no allegation of forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 22.11.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for State and counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Shekhar Pal, Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Janved .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the ossification test report, the victim was found aged 17 years. The victim in her statements under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S. has stated that she left her house voluntarily and had married the applicant. There is no allegation of forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three 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. 6. Let the applicant, Janved 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. 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 S.S. BAIL No. 2773 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad