HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30685 of 2026 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri O.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 65(1) BNS, 3/4 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Bachharaun, District Amroha during pendency of the trial. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that the victim has not stated anything against the applicant in her statement under section 183 BNSS whereas, in her statement under sections 180 BNSS, she has stated that she left her home on her own free will and had gone to Delhi along with the applicant where she lived with him and physical relationship was established between them with mutual consent. It is further submitted that the victim is a student of class Xth and she is aged about 16 years as per ossification test and her date of birth is 05.5.2011 as per certificate of class VIIIth. It is further submitted that the victim has refused to undergo medico-legal examination. It is further submitted that applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 29.7.2026 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, G.A. Sanjeev .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that victim is a minor girl aged about 15 years as per certificate of class VIIIth and 16 years as per ossification test. 5. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have enticed away the daughter of the first informant aged about 16 years, however, she has been recovered. The victim has not stated anything against the applicant in her statement under section 183 BNSS whereas, in her statement under sections 180 BNSS, she has stated that she left her home on her own free will and had gone to Delhi along with the applicant where she lived with him and physical relationship was established between them with mutual consent. The victim is a student of class Xth and she is aged about 16 years as per ossification test and her date of birth is 05.5.2011 as per certificate of class VIIIth. The victim has refused to undergo medico-legal examination. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 29.7.2026. 6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED. 7. Let the applicant Sanjeev involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are BAIL No. 30685 of 2026 2 present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. September 23, 2026 Madhurima BAIL No. 30685 of 2026 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad