Rakesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36896 of 2025

Rakesh

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Ajai Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

As per office report dated 09.12.2025, notice of the present application has been served personally upon the informant-opposite party no.4. Learned AGA submits that notice of the present application has been served upon the Child Welfare Committee, Agra-opposite party no.3 on 14.10.2025. However, no one appears on their behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 183 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 76, 351(2) BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. As per the ossification test report, the victim was found aged 16 years. The range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. There are inconsistencies in the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The said inconsistencies discredits the prosecution case. The victim was medically examined by the doctor on the same day. As per the medical report, no physical injury was seen on the body of the victim. At this

¶11

BAIL No. 36896 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 15.07.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶14

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶15

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the ossification test report, the victim was found aged 16 years. There are inconsistencies in the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. As per the medical report, no physical injury was seen on the body of the victim. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost five months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Rakesh, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

¶17

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶18

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶19

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶20