Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65217 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39865 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Sharma @ Anil Goswami Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Gupta,Subhash Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 2.3.2025. 4. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.345 of 2024, U/S 75(2), 76/65(2) B.N.S. and 9(M)/10 and 5(M)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 6. The applicant is stated to have committed aggravated sexual assault with the victim aged about 6 years and had disrobed her on 25.7.2024 at about 1.30 pm. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 7. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. 8. The FIR is delayed by five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 9. The allegations are per se false. The applicant had an altercation with the informant over the water, as such, the instant FIR has been instituted. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as the mother of the victim has refused for medical examination of the victim. 10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.7.2024 having no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY: 11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the victim was six years old only and the allegations as per her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. are serious in nature. The applicant was in an inebriated state at that time as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the allegations made by the victim being serious in nature, the age of the victim being 6 years and the applicant being found in an inebriated state, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 13. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 14. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad