High Court

2. Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State- respondent apprised the Court that notice has been served to the informant on 16.2.2025. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

3. Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and u/s 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant on 3.4.2024 with regard to enticement of the daughter of the informant aged about 13 years.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that actually applicant and victim both were having adolescent love and victim herself had gone alongwith the applicant and applicant never enticed her away and these facts are evident from both the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 181 BNSS which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application.

8. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, according to the school record, age of the victim at the time of incident was about thirteen and half years but at this stage, precisely it cannot be said that deceased was about thirteen and half years old as genuineness of the date of birth of the victim, disclosed in her school certificate can only be ascertained during trial.

9. He further submitted that in fact, victim is about 17 to 18 years old and this fact is evident from her x-ray report which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application which suggests that her elbow joint was found fused and this fact suggests that intentionally radiologist did not disclose the age of the victim on the instigation of the Investigating Officer.

10. He further submitted that as victim in her both the statements recorded during investigation did not make any accusation against the applicant, therefore, by ignoring her statements, instant bail application should not be dismissed.

11. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.10.2024 i.e. for last almost six months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per school record victim is about thirteen and half years old and therefore, her consent is immaterial.

13. He, however, could not dispute the fact that as per x-ray report of the victim, her elbow joint was found fused but radiologist did not opine about radiological age of the victim.

14. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail for almost six months.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. As per allegation made in the FIR applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about thirteen years old but from the statements of the victim recorded during investigation it reflects that she herself had gone alongwith the applicant and she did not make any allegation against him.

17. Further, however, from the school record of the victim it reflects that her age at the time of incident was about thirteen and half years but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the genuineness of the date of birth of the victim disclosed in her school record can only be ascertained by the trial court.

18. Further, however, x-ray report of the victim is on record and according to the x-ray report her elbow joint was found fused but in spite of that radiologist did not give her radiological age.

19. Further, as victim did not make any accusation against the applicant in her both the statements recorded during investigation, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after ignoring her statements recorded during investigation it is not proper to withheld the bail application of the applicant.

20. Further, applicant appears to be young boy aged about 20 years and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 28.10.2024 i.e. for almost six months.

21. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

23. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

24. Let the applicant-Anuj Jatav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

25. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

26. 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. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Ankita

2. Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State- respondent apprised the Court that notice has been served to the informant on 16.2.2025. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

3. Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and u/s 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant on 3.4.2024 with regard to enticement of the daughter of the informant aged about 13 years.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that actually applicant and victim both were having adolescent love and victim herself had gone alongwith the applicant and applicant never enticed her away and these facts are evident from both the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 181 BNSS which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application.

8. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, according to the school record, age of the victim at the time of incident was about thirteen and half years but at this stage, precisely it cannot be said that deceased was about thirteen and half years old as genuineness of the date of birth of the victim, disclosed in her school certificate can only be ascertained during trial.

9. He further submitted that in fact, victim is about 17 to 18 years old and this fact is evident from her x-ray report which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application which suggests that her elbow joint was found fused and this fact suggests that intentionally radiologist did not disclose the age of the victim on the instigation of the Investigating Officer.

10. He further submitted that as victim in her both the statements recorded during investigation did not make any accusation against the applicant, therefore, by ignoring her statements, instant bail application should not be dismissed.

11. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.10.2024 i.e. for last almost six months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per school record victim is about thirteen and half years old and therefore, her consent is immaterial.

13. He, however, could not dispute the fact that as per x-ray report of the victim, her elbow joint was found fused but radiologist did not opine about radiological age of the victim.

14. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail for almost six months.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. As per allegation made in the FIR applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about thirteen years old but from the statements of the victim recorded during investigation it reflects that she herself had gone alongwith the applicant and she did not make any allegation against him.

17. Further, however, from the school record of the victim it reflects that her age at the time of incident was about thirteen and half years but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the genuineness of the date of birth of the victim disclosed in her school record can only be ascertained by the trial court.

18. Further, however, x-ray report of the victim is on record and according to the x-ray report her elbow joint was found fused but in spite of that radiologist did not give her radiological age.

19. Further, as victim did not make any accusation against the applicant in her both the statements recorded during investigation, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after ignoring her statements recorded during investigation it is not proper to withheld the bail application of the applicant.

20. Further, applicant appears to be young boy aged about 20 years and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 28.10.2024 i.e. for almost six months.

21. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

23. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

24. Let the applicant-Anuj Jatav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

25. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

26. 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. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Ankita