Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41535 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3423 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / complainant. By means of this application under Section 483 of BNSS, applicant Rahul, who is involved in Case Crime No. 195 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 64 BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Nidhauli Kala, district Etah seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is mother of the victim, got a first information report lodged on 12.09.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 115(2), 64 BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant Rahul, Ram Singh (father of the applicant) and Raju (brother of the applicant) making allegation inter alia that on 10.09.2024 at about 06:30 P.M., her minor daughter had gone to the shop of the applicant to purchase a pen. Then applicant seeing the opportunity dragged her daughter inside the house and locked her inside and raped her forcibly. Her daughter in order to save herself bit the ear of accused-applicant with her mouth. On hearing her screams, the applicant's father and Raju also came there and knocked on the door, then the applicant opened the door and seeing blood oozing out from of applicant’s ear, all of them beaten her daughter. At that time, her brother-in-law Anar Singh also reached at the spot, who intervened in the matter. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the victim and the applicant were close-friends. The victim herself came at the shop of the applicant but when her parents came to know about this, they also reached at the shop of the applicant and assaulted the applicant. Sonu, who is brother of the victim, also bit his ear with his mouth. The F.I.R. of the said incident was also lodged from the side of the applicant on 10.09.2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 118(2) BNS, 2023, in which Sonu has been granted bail. So far as allegation of rape on victim by the applicant is concerned, it is argued that no injury was found on the body of the victim, hence the allegation against the applicant is false. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2024 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the victim is minor child aged about 16 years and 09 months. The allegation of rape on victim against the applicant has been levelled in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements under Section 180 and 183 BNSS of the victim. Referring the medical examination report, it is pointed out that hymen of the victim was found torn, which corroborates the prosecution case. It is also submitted that medical examination of the victim was also conducted on the same day of incident, i.e., on 10.09.2024. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that no injury was found on the body of the victim is concerned, it is submitted that it is well settled that by the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Kumar @ Dalli Vs. State Of Uttarakhand passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2013, decided on 16.01.2025 that bodily injury is not necessary in all the cases of rape as defined under Section 63 of BNS. The offence is heinous in nature, hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that allegation of rape on victim against the applicant is consistent in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS of the victim. Presence of the victim at the shop of the applicant is also admitted by the applicant in his F.I.R. dated 10.09.2024. The issue as to whether injury found on the ear of the applicant was caused by the victim or by her brother is concerned, the same is a matter of evidence before the trial Court. Since the allegations of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial Court, therefore, this Court is not recording any finding in this regard, so that trial of the applicant may not be affected. This Court is also of the view that in view of Section 29 of POCSO Act, the presumption shall also be drawn against the accused unless contrary is proved by him. As on date, there is no material on record to disbelieve the statement of minor victim and to presume the false implication of the applicant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad