High Court · 2025

applicant, Sri Roopesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

4. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.0170 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) and 351(2) BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged by victim herself and as per the FIR on the date of incident she was about 12 years and 8 months old and applicant had taken her under the pretext to perform marriage and thereafter he sexually exploited her but entire allegation entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless.

6. He further submits that actually victim is a major girl aged about 18 years and applicant is also aged about 20-21 years old and both were having love affair and victim on her own had left her paternal home but subsequently when some dispute arose between both of them then she lodged FIR of the present case.

7. He further submits that however School Leaving Certificate of the victim suggests that her date of birth is 01.01.2012 and according to it on the date of incident she was about 12 years and 8 months old but as per her ossification test she was about 16 years old and considering the fact that there can be a margin of two years of either side her age can be around 18 years old. He next submits that even look wise victim appears to be major girl aged about 18 years.

8. He further submits that even from the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS it reflects that she, according to her own wish, accompanied the applicant and however, she changed her version entirely in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS but as this statement was recorded subsequent to her statement before the Police, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such version.

9. He further submits that even there are material contradictions in both the statements of the victim recorded during investigation

10. He further submits that even as per statements of the victim recorded during investigation her age was about 14 years and, therefore, there are material contradictions with regard to the age of the victim and what was her age at the time of incident, it can only be properly ascertained by the trial court during trial.

11. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since

20.9.2024, i.e., for almost eight months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per school record of the victim she was even below 13 years of age, at the time of incident and she in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS categorically stated that applicant forcibly took her and committed rape upon her but both the learned counsel could not dispute the fact that as per CMO concerned her radiological age was about 16 years and her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS is contrary to her version made in the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail for almost eight months in the present matter.

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

15. However, as per the School Leaving Certificate of the victim, she was about 12 years and 8 months old on the date of incident but as per the CMO concerned her radiological age was about 16 years.

16. Further as per the statements of the victim recorded during investigation her age was about 14 years and, therefore, there are material contradictions with regard to the age of victim and considering this fact the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant in this regard cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

17. Further, there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS and version of the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

18. Further, considering the fact that as per CMO concerned the radiological age of the victim was about 16 years the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that considering this fact the age of the victim may be even about 18 years, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

19. Further, from the record it reflects that applicant is aged about 20-21 years of age and considering the version of the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage. 20 Further, law is also settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

21. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.9.2024, i.e., for almost eight months.

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-Anand Babu @ Pattu 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 :- 12.5.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

applicant, Sri Roopesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

4. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.0170 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) and 351(2) BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged by victim herself and as per the FIR on the date of incident she was about 12 years and 8 months old and applicant had taken her under the pretext to perform marriage and thereafter he sexually exploited her but entire allegation entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless.

6. He further submits that actually victim is a major girl aged about 18 years and applicant is also aged about 20-21 years old and both were having love affair and victim on her own had left her paternal home but subsequently when some dispute arose between both of them then she lodged FIR of the present case.

7. He further submits that however School Leaving Certificate of the victim suggests that her date of birth is 01.01.2012 and according to it on the date of incident she was about 12 years and 8 months old but as per her ossification test she was about 16 years old and considering the fact that there can be a margin of two years of either side her age can be around 18 years old. He next submits that even look wise victim appears to be major girl aged about 18 years.

8. He further submits that even from the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS it reflects that she, according to her own wish, accompanied the applicant and however, she changed her version entirely in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS but as this statement was recorded subsequent to her statement before the Police, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such version.

9. He further submits that even there are material contradictions in both the statements of the victim recorded during investigation

10. He further submits that even as per statements of the victim recorded during investigation her age was about 14 years and, therefore, there are material contradictions with regard to the age of the victim and what was her age at the time of incident, it can only be properly ascertained by the trial court during trial.

11. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since

20.9.2024, i.e., for almost eight months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per school record of the victim she was even below 13 years of age, at the time of incident and she in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS categorically stated that applicant forcibly took her and committed rape upon her but both the learned counsel could not dispute the fact that as per CMO concerned her radiological age was about 16 years and her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS is contrary to her version made in the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail for almost eight months in the present matter.

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

15. However, as per the School Leaving Certificate of the victim, she was about 12 years and 8 months old on the date of incident but as per the CMO concerned her radiological age was about 16 years.

16. Further as per the statements of the victim recorded during investigation her age was about 14 years and, therefore, there are material contradictions with regard to the age of victim and considering this fact the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant in this regard cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

17. Further, there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS and version of the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

18. Further, considering the fact that as per CMO concerned the radiological age of the victim was about 16 years the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that considering this fact the age of the victim may be even about 18 years, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

19. Further, from the record it reflects that applicant is aged about 20-21 years of age and considering the version of the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage. 20 Further, law is also settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

21. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.9.2024, i.e., for almost eight months.

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-Anand Babu @ Pattu 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 :- 12.5.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad