HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4241 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Suresh Srivastava, counsel for the informant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Rashmi Mishra, counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee. 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. 313 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Madihan, District- Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 28.11.2025. The First information report was lodged on 30.11.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the ossification test report, the victim was found aged about 15 to 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. Placing reliance on the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. it is contended that the victim had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Jaipur, married him and established relations with him. There is no allegation of any forceful sexual assault against the applicant. It is next contended that the victim was present at public places, but she did not raise 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 10.12.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rupa Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Katyaini Singh, Suresh Srivastava Rajbabu @ Babuan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., the victim had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Jaipur, married him and established relations with him. There is no allegation of any forceful sexual assault against the applicant. The victim was present at public places, but she did not raise 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. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than three months and after the 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 Rajbabu @ Babuan, 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. 4241 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad