The court emphasized that a prima facie case for bail does not require exhaustive examination of merits, allowing for a margin of error in age assessment based on ossification tests.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 652 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant against unknown person regarding missing of his daughter aged about 15 years.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The victim seems to be a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major, although her age is stated to be 16 years as per ossification test report and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side.

6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. As per ossification test report, the age of the victim is 16 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side in the light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot be predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

9. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 , this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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

11. Let the applicant- Radha Mohan Alias Raj, 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.

12. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified:

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

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