HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25873 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri C.P. Srivastava, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 124 of 2026, under Sections 70(2), 75, 79, 351(3), 308(2) B.N.S., & 5(g)/6, 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Paniyara, District- Maharajganj during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits 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. The first information report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., does not contain any allegation of rape against the applicant, however the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. stated that the applicant as well as Amarjeet Maurya and Irfan committed rape upon her. It is contended that the material inconsistency between the first information report, the statement of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. on one hand and the statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on the other discredit the prosecution case. The co-accused Amarjeet Maurya has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 31.8.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26186 of 2026 (Amarjeet Maurya vs. State of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.T. Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Prakash Srivastava, G.A. Ajad .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 2.5.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant 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 there are material inconsistency between the first information report, the statement of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. on one hand and the statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on the other. The co-accused Amarjeet Maurya has been granted bail by this court. 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. 6. Let the applicant, Ajad 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. September 15, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 25873 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad