JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J

1. The applicant vide the present application seeks the grant of bail in relation to FIR No.487/2017, Police Station Burari under Sections 366/354/354A/354B/376/506/392/411/323/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 submitting inter alia to the effect that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case; that there are contradictions and variations in the complaint made by the prosecutrix and her statement under Section

164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and her deposition before the Court which contradictions are material in nature; that the applicant has been incarcerated for more than two years.

2. Notice of the application was issued to the State and to the prosecutrix through the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecutrix put in appearance through video conferencing on 28.9.2021 and stated that she has now become a graduate and is currently working in retail banking and in reply to a specific Court query as to whether she opposes the bail application of the applicant or not, submitted that she opposed the same.

3. During the course of submissions that were made on the bail application on 28/9/2021, the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submitted to the effect that the age of the petitioner on the date of the alleged commission of the offence was less than 18 years in as much as the progress report of the petitioner as issued by the Chhotu Ram Public School, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi, showed his date of birth to be 30.10.1999. The State in reply to a specific Court query stated that in Column No. 11A in the charge sheet, the age of the applicant had been put forth as 18 years and thus vide order dated 28.9.2021 the Investigating Officer of the case was directed to make an endeavour to collect the birth certificate of the applicant and to verify the same from his school records and the Investigating Officer was also directed to conduct a verification in relation the progress report submitted by the petitioner. The State submitted the status report in relation to the progress report of the applicant.

4. The status report dated 05.10.2021 submitted under the signatures of Inspector Suresh Kumar, SHO Burari indicates to the effect that on verification of the alleged progress report of the applicant/accused Vishal Tyagi wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 30.10.1999, it was informed by the concerned school authorities that the said date of birth was a clerical mistake and that as per the undertaking declaring the date of birth of the applicant as given by his guardian Virender Singh, the real uncle of the applicant, the date of birth of birth of the applicant is 30.10.1998 which is also as per the school records and the copy of the age proof document supplied by the school were annexed with the status report.

5. The letter dated 01.10.2021 of the Principal of the Chhotu Ram Public School, Senior Secondary Bakhtawarpur, Delhi is categorical to the effect:-

“The date of birth mentioned as 30-10-99 in the Progress Report is a clerical mistake and cannot be relied upon without any other proof. The copies of following documents are enclosed herewith as evidence to establish the correctness of his date of birth as 30-10-1998:

1. Admission Form duly signed by the guardian on 10-

04-2007.

2. An Undertaking given by the guardian at the time of admission on 10-04-2007 declaring date of birth of Vishal Tyagi as 30-10-1998.

3. Photocopy of Admission & Withdrawal Register.

4. Photocopy of School Leaving Certificate of Vishal Tyagi issued on 02-04-2011.”

6. The copy of the admission document form annexed to this letter from the Principal of the Chhotu Ram Public School, Senior Secondary Bakhtawarpur, Delhi also shows that the admission form dated 10.04.2007 also gives the date of birth of the child admitted Vishal Tyagi S/o Parveen Tyagi to be 30.10.1998. To similar effect is the date of birth of the applicant in the undertaking dated 10.04.2007 submitted by the Guardia