Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81119 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46899 of 2024 Applicant :- Vivek Alias Vivek Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey,Priyanka Devi,Raj Kumar Sharma,Tarkeshwar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 2. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 19.12.2024 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised list. 3. Heard Sri Dev Prakash Sharma, holding brief of Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 325 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 31.08.2024 at about 2 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by 5 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is true that the victim is minor but it is a clear cut case of false implication. The victim has not been medically examined during the said intervening period of about six days as her medical examination was conducted on 06.09.2024. Learned counsel has further stated that DNA analysis has not yet been received, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the victim was of very tender age i.e. 8-9 years. The injury was observed on her vital organ and redness and swelling was also found, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. Although, it is true that the FIR is delayed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the victim and also the injury report which indicates injury on the vital part of the victim, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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. 12. 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 :- 16.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad