Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20830 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41127 of 2024 Applicant :- Manglesh Aryan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dipak Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayuri Mehrotra,Pawan Kumar Patel Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Dipak Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Mayuri Mehrotra, learned Advocate appearing for opposite party no. 3, Sri Pawan Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 62 of 2024, U/S 376-D, 376(2)(n), 323, 506 IPC and 5L, 5g/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kohna, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant is stated to have forcibly taken the daughter of the informant to a secluded room on 9.6.2024 at about 2.00 am and had committed rape with her. The co-accused person Prakhar Kanaujia @ Shibbu is stated to have video-recorded the said act. The informant was threatened by the applicant and the co-accused person. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 5. 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. 6. The FIR is delayed by 15 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. The victim is major. She has refused her ossification test, so the presumption shall fall against her. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is the consenting party, as is but evident from the WhatsApp chats and also the CCTV footage. 8. The allegations of making the video has been levelled against the co-accused person Prakhar Kanaujia @ Shibbu only, as such, Section 67-A of I.T. Act has been levelled against him only. The applicant is not wanted in the said section. 9. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.7.2024, 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: 10. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant and the co-accused person were hand in glove with each other and were threatening the victim and her mother regularly. The applicant is seen in the said act of rape in the video recovered from the possession of the co-accused person. It was the prosecution story from the outset that the co-accused person had video recorded the said act and the applicant is very much visible in it. CONCLUSION: 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that there is a video record and the investigating officer has even found that the applicant was present in the said video, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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. 14. 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 :- 13.2.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad