HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24864 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. However it reflects, on 4.8.2026 notice was issued to the informant and till date service report is still awaited but from the counter affidavit filed by State it reflects notice has already been served to the informant on 4.8.2026 therefore, it reflects, despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 638 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS & Sections 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Gurusahaiganj, District Kannauj during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however as per allegation applicant is phupha of the victim and he enticed away the victim and made physical relationship with her but entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false. 5. He further submitted that actually victim started living with the applicant and she herself had gone alongwith the applicant and she also even performed marriage with him and these facts are evident from her both the statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS. He further submitted that prima facie, victim appears to be consenting party. 6. He further submitted that however as per school record on the date of incident victim was about 14 years of age but as her radiological examination her age was about 18 years and therefore, it cannot be said that she was 14 years of age and it reflects her parents did not disclose her correct date of birth in her school record. 7. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 27.3.2026. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pravin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rishabh @ Bobby Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however from the statements of the victim recorded during investigation it reflects, she was consenting party but applicant is phupha of the victim and even from the school record it reflects, victim was about 14 years of age and therefore, considering the facts of the case applicant should not be released on bail and his instant bail application may be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However from the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS it reflects, she was consenting party but from her school record it reflects on the date of incident she was about 14 years of age. 11. Further, even from her supplementary report it reflects, her radiological age was also less than 18 years of age, therefore, prima facie, victim appears to be below 18 years of age. 12. Further, even applicant is phupha of the victim and it reflects, he enticed her away and thereafter started living with her. Considering the overall facts of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 13. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail only since 27.3.2026. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in view of this Court, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. 15. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 16, 2026 Ankita BAIL No. 24864 of 2026 2 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad