Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30805 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47321 of 2024 Applicant :- Chandrabhan Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey,Lalit Kumar Gond Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Singh,G.A.,Sheo Shankar Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 230 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 333, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant along with co-accused person American Patel and had taken her outside her house in the vicinity and had committed rape with her. The co-accused person American Patel is stated to have been standing there at the time of offence. The applicant ran away from the place of occurrence threatening her to put her children to death on 20.10.2024 at about 3 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the victim, at one stage has stated that she was taken out of her house to the adjoining place while in her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS, she has stated that she was taken to the back of her house. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident. The Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence whereby the place of occurrence has been found to be under construction house of the applicant which was just opposite the road of the house of the victim, as such the prosecution story is false. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed photocopies of the under construction house in the vicinity which indicates that the place of occurrence has been shifted by the victim deliberately. The instant case is a fallout of a civil suit going on between the parties as Original Suit No.4555 of 2023 is pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.8, Allahabad. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the counsel for the applicant has wrongly mentioned to be the case of parity as the co-accused American Patel was seen standing at the place of occurrence and he has been granted bail by this Court only on the ground that he has not raped the victim. The case of the applicant is at different footing qua the co-accused American Patel. The FIR is not delayed as it was instituted the same night at 9:04 pm and the occurrence is of 3 a.m. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the case of the applicant is at different footing qua the co-accused person, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 4.3.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad