Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1995 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37465 of 2024 Applicant :- Asim Husain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anita Singh,Dinesh Kumar Misra,G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mrs. Anita Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Asim Husain, who is involved in Case Crime No. 259 of 2024, under Section 65(2) of BNS and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act, police station Mainather, district Moradabad seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant lodged the first information report on 30.07.2024 for the offence under Sections 74 BNS, Sections 9M, 10 POCSO Act and Section 67A IT Act alleging inter alia that he lives with his family at shrine (mazaar) situated at Pakbada Road, Dingarpur, where the applicant keeps coming and going. On 29.07.2024 at about 10:30 A.M., the applicant took the victim behind the toilet on some pretext and started molesting her. In the meanwhile, some unknown person made the video of the applicant's misdeed. The applicant ran away on hearing that someone being around there. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complainant is a resident of West Bengal and he with the help of some anti-social elements has forcibly occupied over the shrine "mazaar" of the applicant's village and started carrying out immoral activities. The applicant is a 'haji' and is follower of Muslim religion, when he has opposed the said activities, then he has been falsely implicated in this case making false and baseless allegations against him. It is also submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in the birth certificate of the victim, the complainant and his wife, who are aged about 78 and 74 years respectively, have been shown as father and mother of the victim whereas they are maternal grandfather and grandmother of the victim. The medical examination of the victim has not been properly conducted. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 14.08.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the first information report by contending that the victim is a minor child aged about eight years. The misdeed committed by the applicant was captured by some unknown person and when the said incident was made viral on social media, then the family members of the victim came to know about the said misdeed committed by the applicant with the victim and thereafter, the first information report was lodged. So far as relation of the complainant with the victim is concerned, it is submitted that victim was born on 17.02.2016 and soon after her birth, her mother expired, therefore, victim was brought up by the informant, who is maternal grandfather and his wife as his daughter. He next submitted that the first information report can be lodged by any person giving information of the incident, hence the prosecution case will not be vitiated. Much emphasis has been given by contending that apart from the oral statement of the victim as well as other witnesses recorded during the investigation, the said video clip is also on record, which has been made part of the case diary, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also pointed out that apart from this case, the applicant has criminal history of one other case being Case Crime No. 384 of 2017, under Sections 377, 511 IPC and Section 11(I), 12 POCSO Act, police station Mainather, district Moradabad but the same has not been disclosed by the applicant in his bail application. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that victim is a small child and allegation of the victim/ prosecution prima facie corroborates from the video clip collected by the Investigating OfÏcer. The case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged video has not been specifically denied by the applicant. So far as stand of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in this case is concerned, this Court is of the view that it is a disputed fact, which is a matter of trial. Since allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial Court, therefore, this Court is not adjudicating the case meticulously, which can be adjudicated at the appropriate stage by the trial Court in accordance with law. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, age of the victim, corroborative material of video of the incident and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad