The court emphasized that age determination for victims in sexual offenses must rely on specific documents, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brahma Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station - Mirapur, District - Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have clicked certain indecent photographs of the victim and enticed her away to a jungle and committed rape with her in the night of 01.01.2025 at about 10:0 PM.

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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 15 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from the fact that she had gone with the applicant to the jungle. The victim by her looks seems to be major although as per class 9 school certificate, her date of birth is 01.09.2011, as such, her age has come out to be 13 years 4 months. It is argued that the age of the victim has been suppressed by the prosecution. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as the victim has not sustained any injury whatsoever. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor and as per her transfer certificate of class 9, she was less than 14 years old at the time of incident. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

8. The alleged transfer certificate of the victim cannot be taken into consideration in view of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, whereby it has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

9. 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 the delay in lodging the FIR coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed

10. Let the applicant- Akash, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

12. 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