Alias Arun Kumar Alias Nanhe State Of U.P. And 3 Others v. Rakesh Kumar

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. She remained with the applicant for a substantial period of time. The only argument against the applicant is the age of the victim, which is marginally less than 14 years as per high school certificate as her date of birth is 08.08.2011.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the said age has been suppressed. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

23.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 2 BAIL No. 28174 of 2025

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor less than 14 years old as per high school certificate, as such, her consent, if any, has no significance in the eyes of law.

The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. It is also settled by Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Vivek Kumar Alias Arun Kumar Alias Nanhe, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent 3 BAIL No. 28174 of 2025 opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 15, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad