JUDGMENT : Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. Applicant Ritik Kumar, who is in jail in connection with Case Crime No.211 of 2023 (Special S.T. No.890/2023) under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) of IPC and Section 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused would submit that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime; that, the applicant/accused is 19 years of age; that, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexrure-4) has unequivocally stated that she knew the applicant/accused and is in love with the applicant/accused and wanted to marry him and on 22.07.2023 the prosecutrix/victim eloped with the applicant/accused after jumping the boundary wall of her house to marry the applicant/accused. The prosecutrix/victim further stated that eloping with the applicant/accused was her plan and not of the applicant/accused as she wanted to marry the applicant/accused. 3. Learned counsel would further submit that the statements given by the prosecutrix/victim in examination-in-chief thereby supporting the prosecution case is an afterthought under the pressure of her parents. 4. He would further submit that although in the examination-in-chief the prosecutrix/victim did not reiterate the statement given by her u/s 164 Cr.P.C., however, in cross-examination prosecutrix/victim admitted that at the time of recording of her statement before the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. her parents and police were present with her, in such circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the prosecutrix/victim in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. would speak something which is not true as she was not under any pressure or threat. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. would submit that this is a heinous offence and the prosecutrix/victim is minor and in her testimony before the Trial Court she has clearly stated that she was sexually assaulted by the applicant/accused who married her in a temple in Delhi. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant/accused would submit that the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has been proved as Exhibit P1 but the District Government Counsel did not explain that why the prosecutrix/victim gave a divergent statement, therefore, the statement recorded at the first instance is more important and reliable then the statement given by the prosecutrix/victim in the Trial Court after reaching in the custody of her parents. 7. 7. Having considered the entirety of facts, but without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case in the trial court, it is a fit case for bail. 8. Bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.