HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34438 of 2024 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant bail application, the applicant-Arif, seeks bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 3/5of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar. 3. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. along with five other persons. The F.I.R. alleges that applicant enticed away minor daughter of the informant aged about 17 years and all other accused gave support in the said offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 363, 120-B I.P.C. When the victim was recovered her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she has alleged that on the date of occurrence the applicant met her and he served her bananas to eat, on eating the same she became unconscious, thereafter, when she regained consciousness she found herself kept in a room, when she asked for to talk her family he abused and threatened, sexual relations were also developed between them several times, she knew the applicant for the last two-three years. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim while reiterating her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has improved the prosecution story by stating that the applicant forced her to embrace muslim religion. In her medical examination no sign of any recent external injuries were found on her person. Her hymen was found torn and healed and in her internal examination no sign of force was seen, her pregnancy test became negative and doctor has not given definite opinion Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar, Manoj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arif .....Applicant(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) regarding her sexual assault. As per her school leaving certificate of Class-V her date of birth is 15.07.2006 and as per her ossification test she was found to be 18 years of age, thus, at the time of alleged she was major. Learned counsel further submits that though the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of sexual assault upon the applicant but in this statement she has also stated that she knew the applicant for the last 2-3 years, thus, it appears that she was a consenting party. There are material contradictions in her both the statements and in her medical examination no injury was seen on her body, her hymen was found old torn and healed and doctor has not given definite opinion regarding sexual assault, thus, medical evidence does not support the allegation of rape and no offence is made out against the applicant and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He next submits that applicant is in jail since 25.05.2024, having no criminal history. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of applicant by contending that there is specific allegation of rape against the applicant, therefore, innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. 6. Considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the rival parties. 7. A perusal of statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. shows that victim has made specific allegation of forcible rape upon the applicant forcibly and she has also made allegation of pressurizing her for embracing applicant's religion, therefore, there is active participation of applicant in the commission of offence. 8. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case and considering that there is specific allegation against the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case for bail is made out. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Arif, is rejected. October 8, 2025 Mustaqeem. BAIL No. 34438 of 2024 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad