Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Smt. Shweta Singh seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0168 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 363, 366- A 376D IPC and Sections 3/4 and 11/12 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, during pendency of trial.

3. Perused the record.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 24.09.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 04.11.2021 was lodged by first informant Nagina Singh (widowed mother of prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 0168 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 363, 366- A 376D, 120B IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons namely Devendra, Smt. Sweta Singh (applicant herein) and Atul Singh have been nominated as named accused.

5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused Devendra Singh alias Deepu forcibly molested the minor daughter of first informant namely Saloni aged about 15 years and dislodged her modesty. They are also alleged to have obtained obscene photographs of the prosecutrix and on basis thereof an attempt was made to blackmail her.

6. After lodging of aforesaid F.I.R.,the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C by Investigating Officer. Same is on record at page 21 of the supplementary affidavit filed by applicant. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has supported the prosecution story. Thereafter prosecutrix was medically examined. Her medico legal report is on record as Annexure SA 5 to the supplementary affidavit. The prosecutrix in her statement before the Doctor has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. The Doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix, however, did not find any signs of sexual assault. However, certain samples were collected from the body of the prosecutrix for pathological examination. Supplementary medico legal report of the prosecutrix has not been brought on record. Ultimately, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C., wherein also the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Ultimately, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet dated 24.1.2022.

7. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number.

8. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of the Court to the proviso to Section 437 Cr. P. C. and on basis thereof he contends that since applicant is a lady, she is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is then contended that medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2017 (13) SCC 369 [LQ/SC/2017/526] that in the absence of medical evidence, no conviction of the applicant is possible under Section 376 IPC. It is then submitted that as per the High School certificate of prosecutrix, her date of birth is 4.6.2005 and the incident in question occurred on 24.9.2021. As such, on the date of occurrence, prosecutrix is aged about 16 years 3 months and 20 days. As such, provisions of POCSO Act shall not be applicable. He further submits that no recovery of any electronic adverse material has been made from the applicant. The prosecutrix has delivered a girl child while in custody. It is then contended that applicant is a lady of clean antecedents, inasmuch she has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 5.11.2021. As such, he has undergone 5 and 1/2 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is lastly contended that charge sheet has already been submitted, as such evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized. The custodial arrest of the applicant is, therefore, not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the aforesaid factual and legal premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, he does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. The prosecutrix was aged about 16 years 3 months and 20 days on the date of occurrence. Considering the age of the prosecutrix and nature of criminality committed upon her, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. He, therefore, submits that present bail application is liable to be rejected. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.

10. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and accusation made, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Smt. Shweta Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under section 229-A I.P.C..

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(iv) 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 her in accordance with law.

(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

12. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

13. The party is permitted to file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court before the court concerned, who shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of Allahabad High Court and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.