Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65233 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39937 of 2024 Applicant :- Dev Singh Rajput Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rafeek Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 27.10.2024. 2. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri A.K. Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2024, U/S 70(2), 126(2), 137(2), 288, 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. On 22.7.2024 at about 5.00 am, the applicant and co-accused persons are stated to have abducted the victim and committed rape with her. The blood soaked victim was found by the informant and it was also observed that the co-accused person Sonu Rajput had caught hold of her, as such, he was caught red-handed and the applicant is stated to have run away from the scene of occurrence after pointing a country made pistol on them. The co-accused person Sonu Rajput was handed over to the police and FIR was instituted. 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 about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. The victim is more than 16 years old and it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature and applicant is not the author of those injuries. The victim has not allayed the allegations of rape against the applicant in her statement recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S. although she has stated that the applicant had gang-raped her alongwith the co-accused person in her statement recorded u /s 183 B.N.S.S., that too, after legal consultation. 8. The applicant is entitled for bail, as he was not arrested at the spot and the injuries have been sustained by the co-accused person Sonu Rajput also. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.7.2024 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: 9. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that four injuries were observed on the body of the victim and her private part was also found injured. The medical examination of the victim was also conducted on 22.7.2024 at about 3.40 pm. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the allegations made in the FIR find corroboration from the medical report and the allegations made therein have been reiterated in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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