Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19992 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46483 of 2024 Applicant :- Ali Hussain Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prince Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. Heard Sri Prince Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 395 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376A, B I.P.C. and Section 5m/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 3. In pursuance of the earlier order of this Court, Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned Sub-Registrar, Sant Kabir Nagar is present in person and he has stated that as per the provision of U.P. Registration Act, sale deed can be executed in jail also, as such, the Sub-Registrar is ready to execute the alleged sale deed between the parties by going to the District Jail, Sant Kabir Nagar in the light of the aforesaid provision. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have sexually assaulted the minor daughter of the informant aged about 10 and 1/2 years on 17.05.2024. The bleeding daughter of the informant informed him that the applicant, who is stated to be involved in making trolleys, had committed the said offence with her on 17.05.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed as it was instituted the next day at 7:30 am. No time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. It is further stated that there is no injury on the vital part of the victim. The age of the victim stands suppressed, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the age of the victim was very tender as she is only 10 and 1/2 years old and she has sustained injuries on her vital part, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. I, myself have perused the medical report of the victim and the doctor has observed that inflammation was present in her labia minora and 2º perineal midline tear was present which was 4 cm x 2.5 cm extended from posterior vaginal wall just above the anal rugosity. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the tender age of the victim being 10 and 1/2 years coupled by the fact that she has sustained injuries on her vital organ which stands corroborated by the allegations made in the FIR, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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 :- 11.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad