SATISH SAINI @ CHOTU @ VIRATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15489 of 2026

Satish Saini @ Chotu @ Virat
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :     Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :     G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 8 out of 265)

                         HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the
informant has been served on 27.04.2026 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.

2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.K.
Pal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned
A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2026, under Sections
137(2), 64 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station -
Amroha Nagar, District - J.P. Nagar (Amroha), during the pendency of
trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away
the minor daughter of the informant on 17.02.2026 at about 08:15 AM.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was lodged with a
delay of about 16 hours and no plausible explanation has been offered for
this delay. It is further submitted that the victim appears to be a
consenting party as per her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, as she
willingly accompanied the applicant in his car all the way to Haridwar
and did not raise any alarm during the journey or her stay. The victim
                                                        BAIL No. 15489 of 2026
                               2


initially refused to undergo any medical examination, but later agreed to
the same however, the medical examination does not corroborate the
prosecution story.

6. Learned counsel further submits that her consent may also be inferred
from the fact that no weapon was visibly seen in the possession of the
applicant at the time, and that the victim only alleges that he threatened
her. It is next contended that, by her looks, the victim appears to be major,
though the ossification test report indicates her age to be between 17 and
18 years. In view of the permissible margin of error and the well-settled
law laid down by the Supreme Court on ossification based age
ascertainment, a liberal leverage of two years may be granted to the
applicant on the upper side. There is no medical corroboration of the
alleged incident. The applicant is in jail since 25.02.2026, having no
criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
shall cooperate with trial.

7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned Senior Counsel for the informant
have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per
medical report, epiphysis at medial end of clavicle appeared but are not
fused which indicates that she was minor aged about 16 years. The
consent of minor, if any, has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, as
such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the delay in
lodging the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS
which indicates towards her consent coupled by the fact that there being
no medical corroboration of the incident, prima facie I find it a fit case to
release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Satish Saini @ Chotu @ Virat, be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the
court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions
that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall
appear before the trial court as required.
                                                                                    BAIL No. 15489 of 2026
                                                               3


                                    10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
                                    observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.



                                                                                     (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Siddhant




Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad