Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67858 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44272 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jeetendra Kesharwani,Siddharth Niranjan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sheikh Ubaidur Rahman, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jeetendra Kesharwani, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 27.11.2024. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.188 of 2024, under Section 65(2) B.N.S. and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Ganganagar, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the informant found the victim and the applicant without clothes on their lower part and apprehended both of them with the help of several persons of the locality on 08.07.2024 and the applicant was beaten up by the public at large. 6. On being asked about the identity, the applicant informed one and all about his details. The police was called and the victim and the applicant were rushed to the police station. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the allegations are per se false. The case made out against the applicant may not be more than Section 76 of B.N.S., but the FIR has been instituted under Section 65(2) of B.N.S. The said FIR has been instituted with embellishments. Leaned counsel has further stated that there is no evidence that the applicant has committed rape with the victim. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as the victim has not sustained any injury whatsoever, rather it is the applicant who has sustained injuries. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant had gone to attend to his natural call and has been falsely implicated by the public at large as he was seen defecating in open. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 08.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the it is an open and shut case as the applicant was arrested alongwith the victim at the spot and was beaten up by public at large. The applicant has sustained injuries on his leg and several parts of the body. The injury report corroborates the prosecution story itself. Even the recovery memo of the applicant has been entered in the police station, whereby it is mentioned that the applicant had sustained injuries. 10. Learned State Law Officer has further stated that the victim was minor aged about 12 years as per ossification test report, as such, she can't be a consenting party. The case falls within the category of rape as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that the applicant lied over her. 11. Learned State Law Officer has also stated that the CCTV footage of the locality indicates that the applicant was taking the victim alongwith him by force, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances and the fact that the applicant was arrested at the spot by the public at large and also apprehended by the police on being called and also taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the applicant himself and the CCTV footage, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 13. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 14. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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 :- 30.4.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad