HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5604 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Virendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant-Faraz Khan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.251 of 2024, u/s 328, 376, 506 IPC and u/s 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 67B of I.T. Act, P.S. Sector-58, NOIDA, District Commissionerate, Gautambudh Nagar. 4. The counter affidavit dated 15.04.2025 of the State in its' para no.2 states that notice regarding pendency of the present bail application has been served on the complainant, copy of the said proof of service has been annexed as C.A.-1 to the same. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the complainant despite matter has been taken up in the revised list. 5. Vide order dated 23.5.2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court had directed to learned State Counsel to file a better counter affidavit indicating the details of recovered photographs/videos/screenshots of the victim from the Instagram ID whatsoever. Learned counsel for the State submits that counter affidavit dated 8.7.2025 in compliance of the said order has been filed which is already taken on record and while placing para nos.2 and 3 of the same, it is submitted that the Investigating Officer could not recover any such photograph/video and screenshot and the said Instagram ID was not found as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Zubair, Virendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Faraz Khan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) per the website. 6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 20.7.2024 by Pradeep Chauhan against the applicant and five other persons alleging therein that his daughter aged about 13 years used to go to study in class 8th. In August, 2023, she met the girl and became friend with her. Her friend then one day on the pretext of sending her home, made her going on a motorcycle of the applicant. The applicant then on the way stopped at his house and stated that he will meet his mother and come back and gave her cold-drink. After consuming the same, his daughter became unconscious and then after regaining consciousness, she found her clothes to be disturbed. She then understood that the applicant has committed sexual assault on her and told him that she would go and tell her mother about it on which she was threatened by the applicant of life and stated that her photograph and video would be made viral by him. He since the last about one year on the strength of the said photograph and video continued to blackmail his daughter and many times sexually exploited her. A report be lodged and action be taken. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that as per the annexure no.2A to the counter affidavit dated 8.7.2025 of the State, the C.M.O concerned has opined the age of the victim as 16 years. It is further argued that the present case is a case of consent as the victim went with the applicant on his motorcycle out of her own sweet-will and then consumed the cold-drink. The present FIR has been lodged just in order to falsely implicate and harass the applicant. The statement of the victim recorded during investigation is on the pressure of the family members just to falsely implicate the applicant. It is further argued that no such photograph or video has been recovered during investigation. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and is in jail since 24.7.2024. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per the FIR, the victim is aged about 13 years. The C.M.O concerned has opined the age of the victim as 16 years after examination. The victim is thus minor girl. It is further submitted that the consent of a minor is of no worth. She has stated of the applicant taking her away, giving her some intoxicating drink and then committing rape on her BAIL No. 5604 of 2025 2 and then continued to commit rape after blackmailing her, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a minor girl aged about 13 years. The applicant is named in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. The consent of a minor is of no worth. There are allegations of sexual assault on the victim. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. September 18, 2025 Gaurav Kuls BAIL No. 5604 of 2025 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad