Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18076 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12654 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd. Faiz @ Faiz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2024, under Sections 376-D, 342, 323, 504, 506, 366 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Hansvar, District Ambedkar Nagar. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7510 of 2024 was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this court by means of an order dated 30.07.2024. 3. The second bail application has been moved on the ground that the statements of informant and victim have been recorded after rejection of first bail application, which reveals that the victim was in a relationship with co-accused Aamir and the applicant's involvement in commission of offence is not supported from the statement. 4. A perusal of statement of the victim shows that she has categorically stated that the applicant and co-accused Aamir had raped her and both of them had beaten her also. She further stated that she had got terrified due to the incident. 5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copy of statement of the doctor who had conducted the medico legal examination of the victim. The doctor had stated that the victim was suffering from severe pain in her private part. She has also mentioned some other abnormality. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the doctor has stated that there was no injury in urine passage of the victim. 7. In medical terms urine passage and genitals are separate and distinct, therefore, this statement of the doctor is of no avail to the applicant. 8. The learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the offence is heinous in nature as such the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. As the victim has stated that the applicant had raped her, this court does not find any good ground to take a different view from the view taken by coordinate Bench of this court while rejecting the first bail application. 10. Accordingly, the second bail application of applicant is also rejected. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench