Mohd Amir vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 28.04.2026 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 23 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kiratpur, District - Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates her consent as she had accompanied the applicant all the way to Maharashtra and married him. The ossification test report places the victim's age at about 16 years which carries margin of error of 1?2 years on either side. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record to corroborate the alleged incident. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant- Mohd Amir, 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. 7. 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