Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17440 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37535 of 2024 Applicant :- Basant Singh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ram Ashish Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken no record. 2. Heard Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A., who appears for the State of U.P. and Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for O.P. No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report stood lodged against the applicant on 23.07.2024 at 17:50 hours under Section 75 of BNS, 2023, under Section 9M/10 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act. 4. Submission is that the allegations contained in the FIR are totally false and incorrect and they have been reflected in the FIR just in order to implicate the applicant, who is a Principal of the Institution in question against whom allegations have been leveled that the applicant outraged the modesty of the victim and in lieu thereof the mark-sheet and other testimonials were being granted to the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there happens to be affidavits of the teachers and staff of the College in question which shows that mark-sheet and other testimonials have already been delivered and the victim has already taken admission in different school. 5. Learned A.G.A as well as counsel for the victim submits that the allegations explicitly points out the commission of offence. He further submits that factual enquiry cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that factual issues cannot be gone into the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC particularly, when the trial has not commenced, in the background of the dictum in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2021 SC 1918. 7. In view of the same, this Court declines to interfere in the present proceedings. 8. The application is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued for consideration of the bail. 9. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case applicant moves appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement of bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with the law of the land. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad